I asked this in a related thread and it didn't get addressed so I'll ask again here. How would a libertarian society address the problem of certain entities emitting enormous amounts of C02, leading to global warming?

An answer I've received elsewhere was that a libertarian society would allow you to sue power companies that output large amounts of C02. I don't like this answer for two reasons:

1) Depending on the type of libertarian society there may not be a court system the power company would agree to be sued in, and they might not obey the decision anyway.

2) Even individual power companies don't emit enough C02 to noticeably affect global C02 levels. Global C02 levels only get measurably affected by the combined output of hundreds of the coal burning plants in the world. You would have to simultaneously sue every power company in the world, which is completely impossible right now and would be even harder still in a world with less centralization.

How would a libertarian political order address this? And more generally, how would it address the problems that arise when a great number of parties each contribute small amounts of pollution into common resources?

Start a clean power company that emits a lot less co2 than your competitors' power plants. People who value clean energy will be willing to spend more money on your power than on your competitors. If there aren't many people willing to pay the extra cost, then perhaps most people don't agree with you that emitting co2 into the atmosphere is a big problem, or that addressing it is worth the current cost.

Arguably humans are very bad at cost-benefit analysis when benefits are very immediate and costs are in the far future. It's also difficult to deal with problems where, when the major effects show up, it is too late to do anything about it. Humans also seem to be evolutionary designed to think about linear change much easier than non-linear change. All this to say, it's unlikely that global warming would be dealt with effectively in a libertarian society, but it doesn't seem to be being dealt with very well in non-libertarian societies as well.

There are a variety of problems like this though where I think that increasing the likelihood of socializing people to think of themselves as isolated individuals (which market-based transactions tend to do) rather than as part of a larger communities, including the community of beings living on this planet, can have bad effects overall.

Not an argument for authoritarian structures or states, since as mentioned I don't exactly see those dealing with this issue, and it is theoretically possible for an anarcho-capitalist society to deal with global warming, but it is unlikely I think.

How would a libertarian political order address this? And more generally, how would it address the problems that arise when a great number of parties each contribute small amounts of pollution into common resources?

The short answer is that no known system handles this well, other than perhaps a dictatorship with a dictator who really likes a cold planet. You can see how badly Democracies are handling this. However, the basic solution to these kinds of problems is prosperity and technology. So if you think a Libertarian society will lead to prosperity, you can expect it to solve these kinds of problems better than other systems. If you don't think it leads to prosperity, then you should reject it regardless of how it handles negative externalities.

Not long ago, the big negative externality was horse poop and rotting bodies in the streets. Technology and prosperity solved that.

In a Libertarian society people would be well educated enough in science to realize that global warming is designed as a tool to push a tax scheme, not environmental policy, and that the earth is heating because of increased solar activity, not because of human activity.

An answer I've received elsewhere was that a libertarian society would allow you to sue power companies that output large amounts of C02. I don't like this answer for two reasons:

1) Depending on the type of libertarian society there may not be a court system the power company would agree to be sued in, and they might not obey the decision anyway.

2) Even individual power companies don't emit enough C02 to noticeably affect global C02 levels. Global C02 levels only get measurably affected by the combined output of hundreds of the coal burning plants in the world. You would have to simultaneously sue every power company in the world, which is completely impossible right now and would be even harder still in a world with less centralization.

How would a libertarian political order address this? And more generally, how would it address the problems that arise when a great number of parties each contribute small amounts of pollution into common resources?

If a power company refuses to use courts then it will have a tough time settling disputes where it's the victim. It's going to be a riskier investment which means fewer people are going to invest and those that do invest will invest less. No business is going to get very far and a large business that requires a huge startup cost won't even get off the ground without agreeing to abide by a court's ruling. If it does agree to abide by a court's ruling yet fails to obey then it's violated a contract and can be forced to comply and be charged with the costs of forcing it to comply.

It doesn't matter how much pollution you emit. If you can prove damage is being done to your property and you can measure the amount of pollution emitted then you'll be able to sue proportionally to that damage. You also won't have to sue every polluter on the planet simultaneously. I'm not even sure why you asserted that. You can sue them one at a time. Also, assuming everyone will be a victim then a class action lawsuit can be filed and you won't even have to do much, just sign your name somewhere.

The bottom line is, as long as people value pristine land, clean air and fresh water, there will be a cost associated with spoiling them. Businesses that can avoid these costs will increases their profits, expand and eventually drive the less green companies out of business. The market can handle pollution and has an incentive to do so, as long as we respective property rights and allow victims of pollution to recoup damages from polluters.

Start a clean power company that emits a lot less co2 than your competitors' power plants. People who value clean energy will be willing to spend more money on your power than on your competitors. If there aren't many people willing to pay the extra cost, then perhaps most people don't agree with you that emitting co2 into the atmosphere is a big problem, or that addressing it is worth the current cost.

The problem is that an individual's actions alone will have zero effect on the global C02 level. It is only when millions of peoples' actions are combined together that an effect is made. So an individual has to choose between the more expensive clean power source, with no measurable benefit for their individual decision, and the cheaper power source, with no measurable detriment to their individual decision.

Logical individuals, even if they highly value a low global C02 level, will choose the cheap and dirty power source because it has a net cost benefit for themselves with no measurable pollution increase for their individual decision.

One way I can see is communication, repeated communication, followed by boycotts and when a sufficient number of people agree, contingent contracts.

Contingent contracts are contracts that trigger after a sufficient number of people agree to a proposition. They can be combined with money amounts kept in escrow. Once a sufficient number of people agree to a contract, then the technologies that need to be developed are developed and people maintain an account of who contributed.

If the issue is serious enough, the boycotts on the people who did not contribute will be serious.

It doesn't matter how much pollution you emit. If you can prove damage is being done to your property and you can measure the amount of pollution emitted then you'll be able to sue proportionally to that damage. You also won't have to sue every polluter on the planet simultaneously. I'm not even sure why you asserted that. You can sue them one at a time. Also, assuming everyone will be a victim then a class action lawsuit can be filed and you won't even have to do much, just sign your name somewhere.

There is a safe (and necessary) level of C02 in the Earth's atmosphere. Suing an individual power plant will result in them saying, accurately, that their output alone does not bring the Earth's atmospheric C02 levels above the safe level.

There is a safe (and necessary) level of C02 in the Earth's atmosphere. Suing an individual power plant will result in them saying, accurately, that their output alone does not bring the Earth's atmospheric C02 levels above the safe level.

Let's say that you're standing inside of an empty tank that goes up over your head with your feet strapped to the bottom. Some guy dumps in a 5 gallon bucket of water. It splashes around your feet, no harm done.

Now let's say you're up to your neck in water in that same tank. Some guy dumps in a 5 gallon bucket of water and you drown. Is it a defense for him to say that his bucket of water alone wouldn't have killed you if the tank was empty?

Logical individuals, even if they highly value a low global C02 level, will choose the cheap and dirty power source because it has a net cost benefit for themselves with no measurable pollution increase for their individual decision.

They will do that until enough individuals enter into a mutually-binding agreement to all switch to a clean power source as soon as they reach a critical mass of people such that the individual benefit from switching exceeds the individual cost. They may even refuse to do business with people who refuse to enter into such agreements.

Logical individuals, even if they highly value a low global C02 level, will choose the cheap and dirty power source because it has a net cost benefit for themselves with no measurable pollution increase for their individual decision.

They will do that until enough individuals enter into a mutually-binding agreement to all switch to a clean power source as soon as they reach a critical mass of people such that the individual benefit from switching exceeds the individual cost. They may even refuse to do business with people who refuse to enter into such agreements.

The bottom line is, as long as people value pristine land, clean air and fresh water, there will be a cost associated with spoiling them. Businesses that can avoid these costs will increases their profits, expand and eventually drive the less green companies out of business. The market can handle pollution and has an incentive to do so, as long as we respective property rights and allow victims of pollution to recoup damages from polluters.

This type of thinking is so fallacious, it is absurd. Each business, an entity in its own right, and often small, focuses on serving its bottom line, and will always try and get away with what it can and assume that its competitors can and will do the good thing.

Is there money to be made by the timber industry in the Amazon basin? I think so. Are entities exploiting that? I think so. Is it destroying biodiversity as a result? I think so. Can we get that resource back? No.

As Paul R. Ehrlich says:

"The scale of the human socio-economic-political complex system is so large that it seriously interferes with the biospheric complex system upon which it is wholly dependant, and cultural evolution has been too slow to deal effectively with the resulting crisis."

There is a safe (and necessary) level of C02 in the Earth's atmosphere. Suing an individual power plant will result in them saying, accurately, that their output alone does not bring the Earth's atmospheric C02 levels above the safe level.

Let's say that you're standing inside of an empty tank that goes up over your head with your feet strapped to the bottom. Some guy dumps in a 5 gallon bucket of water. It splashes around your feet, no harm done.

Now let's say you're up to your neck in water in that same tank. Some guy dumps in a 5 gallon bucket of water and you drown. Is it a defense for him to say that his bucket of water alone wouldn't have killed you if the tank was empty?

I think this is a more accurate analogy: Let's say you're wearing cement shoes in a tank that drains out 6 gallons per minute and normally has 3 gallons a minute flowing in. Four people have also come along and start throwing in 1 gallon per minute each. Is any one of them legally liable for killing you?

They will each argue that their 1 gallon per minute was well within the safe level of contribution that the tank would accept without causing any danger to its inhabitants.

The liability analysis gets even more muddled when you multiply all the numbers by several thousand.

Do corporations want to drill in the Arctic Refuge? Yes, they do. Will they if allowed to? Yes! What if there were no governing regulations with regard to that? They'd already be there in large numbers.

Do the Chileans want to build a large hydroelectric system in Patagonia? Some entities do. It's all about the bottom line. Destroy and damage that which you can't get back, to service the bottom line.

It's fallacious thinking that will leave us with nothing in the end. It's the classic slippery slope. The first real example of it was the mass megafauna extinctions in Europe and North America around 13,000 years ago. And it's been going on since then.

Each business, an entity in its own right, and often small, focuses on serving its bottom line, and will always try and get away with what it can and assume that its competitors can and will do the good thing. Is there money to be made by the timber industry in the Amazon basin? I think so. Are entities exploiting that? I think so. Is it destroying biodiversity as a result? I think so. Can we get that resource back? No.

Which business is going to last longer, one that clear cuts until it runs out of a trees or one that cuts down trees and plants new ones? The business that plans for the future will be around longer. It's better for the long term bottom line to engage in sustainable practices.

As for biodiversity, how much rain forest do we need? Just mark off a section of it and claim it has an ecological preserve. Problem solved. I'm sure plenty of medical companies will also donate a little to this because who knows, some species of bug may cure cancer someday.

I think this is a more accurate analogy: Let's say you're wearing cement shoes in a tank that drains out 6 gallons per minute and normally has 3 gallons a minute flowing in. Four people have also come along and start throwing in 1 gallon per minute each. Is any one of them legally liable for killing you?

They will each argue that their 1 gallon per minute was well within the safe level of contribution that the tank would accept without causing any danger to its inhabitants.

The liability analysis gets even more muddled when you multiply all the numbers by several thousand.

Which business is going to last longer, one that clear cuts until it runs out of a trees or one that cuts down trees and plants new ones? The business that plans for the future will be around longer. It's better for the long term bottom line to engage in sustainable practices.

Businesses that believe replanting clear cut forests is a substitute for preexisting old growth forests are engaging in the destruction of a resource that is not being replenished, as replanted clear cut sections are not the same as old growth forests. Thus, by your way of thinking, the businesses either don't realize the destruction they are causing, or do it willfully.

As for biodiversity, how much rain forest do we need? Just mark off a section of it and claim it has an ecological preserve. Problem solved. I'm sure plenty of medical companies will also donate a little to this because who knows, some species of bug may cure cancer someday.

What's destroyed, and what is being destroyed could be what we need in the future. And when it is destroyed, then we start looking to that which is not destroyed. For example, the Arctic Refuge or Patagonia. It doesn't stop.

Your arguments are only showing your naivete. There is a balance here, and the size of human impact has reached a point where it cannot be allowed to continue at its current rate. It's been going on for a long time, and the pace is increasing. Your proposed methods will not decrease this pace. They will only increase it.

Your proposals encourage a reactive rather than proactive method. However, the reactive method only reacts when excessive irreversible damage has been done. Already, irreversible damage has been done. There is a finely nuanced understanding that is required by all entities involved, and servicing the bottom line encourages glossing over those finer nuances. Your arguments are an example of selectively choosing to ignore those finer nuances.

And that is the heart of it right there: when servicing the bottom line, one can always choose to be ignorant about the finer details if it will allow greater profitability.

Businesses that believe replanting clear cut forests is a substitute for preexisting old growth forests are engaging in the destruction of a resource that is not being replenished, as replanted clear cut sections are not the same as old growth forests.

I didn't claim they were. My point was, if you replant trees, you don't have to keep cutting more and more old growth. At some point you can go back and cut down the new growth. The problem with clear cutting is that it's unsustainable.

What's destroyed, and what is being destroyed could be what we need in the future. And when it is destroyed, then we start looking to that which is not destroyed. For example, the Arctic Refuge or Patagonia. It doesn't stop.

Go claim sections of the Arctic Refuge or Patagonia and make it an ecological preserve. Problem solved. It sounds like you're saying that you want the world to be untouched. That's unreasonable. You need to come up with some kind of plan whereby we preserve as much biodiversity as possible, in case we might need it, without bringing the rest of the world to a grinding halt.

Your insults are only showing how hysterical you are. I'm now ignoring you. Congratulations on completely alienating someone that could have been persuaded to your viewpoint had you not been so belligerent. You're really not helping your cause.

Go claim sections of the Arctic Refuge or Patagonia and make it an ecological preserve. Problem solved. It sounds like you're saying that you want the world to be untouched. That's unreasonable. You need to come up with some kind of plan whereby we preserve as much biodiversity as possible, in case we might need it, without bringing the rest of the world to a grinding halt.

The Arctic Refuge is claimed as an area that is supposed to be untouched. And the same goes for Patagonia! That's the whole point. It's the slippery slope in action.

Your insults are only showing how hysterical you are. I'm now ignoring you. Congratulations on completely alienating someone that could have been persuaded to your viewpoint had you not been so belligerent. You're really not helping your cause.

I will attempt to be civil. I do wish you to come around to my viewpoint. Accept my apology.

I will attempt to be civil. I do wish you to come around to my viewpoint. Accept my apology.

Thanks. All you have to do is attack the arguments and not me personally. I may be naive, brainwashed or whatever but I'm not going to just take your word for it. You'll have to convince me. I'm also sympathetic to your cause. However, I refuse to condone any solution to the problem that involves initiatory violence against other people or their property.

The Arctic Refuge is claimed as an area that is supposed to be untouched. And the same goes for Patagonia! That's the whole point. It's the slippery slope in action.

The problem is that it's owned by governments and not private citizens. If I owned the Arctic Refuge and you tried to drill into it then I'd stop you, with force if necessary. That's why I said it needs to be claimed by a person or group of people.

I agree. But the political process is even slower and even less reliable. There are no perfect solutions. There may not even be any really good ones.

I agree with you. But I believe until some process that works is in place, regulation is very important, and we're not stringent enough, because most people think along the lines of: "Drill, baby, Drill!" That's a sign that education is lacking. What is needed is an understanding that the trajectory in place is not leading in the right direction. We must seek alternatives. Education and technology are paramount, and a realization that growth cannot be sustained.

Unfortunately, nations competing with each other forces growth for the purposes of funding national security.

The problem is that it's owned by governments and not private citizens. If I owned the Arctic Refuge and you tried to drill into it then I'd stop you, with force if necessary. That's why I said it needs to be claimed by a person.

Doug Tompkins only has so much money. We're still in a crisis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Tompkins

Your proposals encourage a reactive rather than proactive method. However, the reactive method only reacts when excessive irreversible damage has been done. Already, irreversible damage has been done. There is a finely nuanced understanding that is required by all entities involved, and servicing the bottom line encourages glossing over those finer nuances. Your arguments are an example of selectively choosing to ignore those finer nuances.

There isn't an economic school of thought on earth that doesn't agree with this statement. It's only those hard liner libertarians that think a free market will magically be sufficiently proactive.

Although hurting the environment is bad PR and all that, most people only pretend to care about the environment. There is a "libertarianism and externalities" thread that kinda goes on about this: the consensus here appears to be "we kinda suck at controlling externalities, but so do governments".

This is pretty weak. At a minimum, tradable emissions permits are a very capitalist solution, and there is already an international framework (Kyoto accord). Yes, it's not working perfectly and never will... But I have a lot more confidence in long-term diplomatic pressure than planetwide cooperation on a prisoner's dilemma.

I'm sure this will attract a witty insult to my intelligence for supporting an already floundering, globally statist solution. ;D I eagerly await a free market solution that actually works better, if anyone has heard of one that I haven't seen... It should be theoretically possible.

Unfortunately, nations competing with each other forces growth for the purposes of funding national security.

You're wrong, the growth is good and absolutely can be sustained. The view that the growth is unsustainable comes from the mistaken assumption that sustaining something means continuing to go in the precise direction. This is not so. Sustaining growth means continuing to grow. It's like you look at a curving highway and think "there's no way you can keep going to San Diego, you'd run off the road". No, you turn with it.

We've sustained unsustainable growth for centuries simply by changing the way we grow as needed and on schedule.

I don't condone initiatory violence to solve problems. If you damage my property or it's clear that your actions will damage my property, I can stop you but I can't do anything until there is a clear and present danger. I don't have to wait for you to shoot me, just until you threaten me. It can be proactive but not to the point where there's never a threat in the first place. There has to be a threat before it's legitimate to respond in kind.

It doesn't matter if not using initiatory violence "doesn't work". Let justice be done though the heavens fall. Even if the world will implode unless we initiate violence against a minority of people, my only response will be "it had to end sometime". In the long run, we're all dead. Let's live our lives nobly until then.

Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?

reading the posts above, the answer should be obvious.

it wouldn't. it would dither. it would slice and dice reality with polite legal and quasi-legal fictions. it would assign blame incrementally, and feel bad about itself decrementally. it would grant exemptions for wealth, while refusing to recognize that wealth was the cause. it would politicize, and demonize. it would deflect, and obfuscate.

it would do everything - and more - seen in the posts above. posts in, arguably, one of the most purely libertarian sites around.

*

it would die.

*

here is the truth:

some very few things are so big that they transcend politics. or national government.

Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?

reading the posts above, the answer should be obvious.

it wouldn't. it would dither. it would slice and dice reality with polite legal and quasi-legal fictions. it would assign blame incrementally, and feel bad about itself decrementally. it would grant exemptions for wealth, while refusing to recognize that wealth was the cause. it would politicize, and demonize. it would deflect, and obfuscate.

it would do everything - and more - seen in the posts above. posts in, arguably, one of the most purely libertarian sites around.

*

it would die.

*

here is the truth:

some very few things are so big that they transcend politics. or national government.

If not, how do you know resources are diminishing? It seems we're finding new resources at least as fast as we're using them up.

Sure. The Singularity will arise, and provide us with the technology to build a space faring species, resulting in a solar system wide economy, enveloping first the Asteroid Belt, then the gas giants, then the Kuiper Belt, then the Oort Cloud, then the nearby stars, ultimately resulting in a trans-human diaspora across the Milky Way. The Human Experience will ultimately harness the power of stars, and most of us will live in Dyson Spheres until the heat death of the Universe.

If not, how do you know resources are diminishing? It seems we're finding new resources at least as fast as we're using them up.

Sure. The Singularity will arise, and provide us with the technology to build a space faring species, resulting in a solar system wide economy, enveloping first the Asteroid Belt, then the gas giants, then the Kuiper Belt, then the Oort Cloud, then the nearby stars, ultimately resulting in a trans-human diaspora across the Milky Way. The Human Experience will ultimately harness the power of stars, and most of us will live in Dyson Spheres until the heat death of the Universe.

But until such time, the Earth is where it's at.

Oil will be more expensive without government subsidies. Alternate energy sources, no longer with a subsidized competitor, would be competitive in the marketplace and something would take its place, making it obsolete and removing the problem.

who is initiating violence? i mean - the truth of global warming is clear - and only argued by people like Lord Monckton (who is not a Lord and has a degree in journalism, but has nevertheless been invited to testify before Congress - by Republicans like Inhofe, who is purely owned by Exxon), or Rick Santorum.

at this point, the people who are initiating violence are those who defend one more day's profits of big oil - and who are paid to do so, thinking they'll get to join the club. they won't. but they will create a billion climate refugees in the course of the next three to four decades. where will they go? how will they get there? what will they eat? violence, you were saying?

If not, how do you know resources are diminishing? It seems we're finding new resources at least as fast as we're using them up.

Sure. The Singularity will arise, and provide us with the technology to build a space faring species, resulting in a solar system wide economy, enveloping first the Asteroid Belt, then the gas giants, then the Kuiper Belt, then the Oort Cloud, then the nearby stars, ultimately resulting in a trans-human diaspora across the Milky Way. The Human Experience will ultimately harness the power of stars, and most of us will live in Dyson Spheres until the heat death of the Universe.

But until such time, the Earth is where it's at.

Still, we are finding new resources faster than we are using them up. Blubber, horses, coal, oil, uranium, solar, there is no evidence even the usable resources on Earth are decreasing. We are better off using the resources more quickly and developing the technology and prosperity to find more resources than we are trying to slow ourselves down. You don't turn the wheel of the car until you get to the curve.

Still, we are finding new resources faster than we are using them up. Blubber, horses, coal, oil, uranium, solar, there is no evidence even the usable resources on Earth are decreasing. We are better off using the resources more quickly and developing the technology and prosperity to find more resources than we are trying to slow ourselves down. You don't turn the wheel of the car until you get to the curve.

I disagree with this. I stand behind the statement made by Stanford professor Paul R. Ehrlich:

"The scale of the human socio-economic-political complex system is so large that it seriously interferes with the biospheric complex system upon which it is wholly dependant, and cultural evolution has been too slow to deal effectively with the resulting crisis."

And the views of Herman Daly. You can watch a video of him here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/daly-on/

Unfortunately, the Seed Magazine site is down, or I'd point you to two excellent articles, one an interview with Herman Daly, and another an article on biodiversity.

Still, we are finding new resources faster than we are using them up. Blubber, horses, coal, oil, uranium, solar, there is no evidence even the usable resources on Earth are decreasing. We are better off using the resources more quickly and developing the technology and prosperity to find more resources than we are trying to slow ourselves down. You don't turn the wheel of the car until you get to the curve.

I disagree with this. I stand behind the statement made by Stanford professor Paul R. Ehrlich:

"The scale of the human socio-economic-political complex system is so large that it seriously interferes with the biospheric complex system upon which it is wholly dependant, and cultural evolution has been too slow to deal effectively with the resulting crisis."

Odd that you would stand by views that have been so thoroughly discredited, but whatever. To the extent you agree with Ehrlich, you should be trying to speed up cultural evolution, not slow it down. The child you don't have could have been the person who figured out how to make fusion power practical.

Ehrlich has claimed that his doomsday forecasts didn't come true because he sounded the alarm and action was taken to avert catastrophes. Exactly. When you get to the curve in the road, you don't freak out, you just turn.

at this point, the people who are initiating violence are those who defend one more day's profits of big oil - and who are paid to do so, thinking they'll get to join the club.

You have to show a direct threat. You can't just say that so-and-so doing X will increase my chances of coming to harm. If that argument applies then we need to lock up all teenage males because letting them roam freely increases the chances that I'll get attacked by one of them.

To the extent you agree with Ehrlich, you should be trying to speed up cultural evolution, not slow it down.

It depends on how you choose to look at it. The statement I quoted is not really a prediction. It's more an assertion about the current state of affairs, which you argue is only an opportunity to make a turn in the road.

Fine. Who decides which way to turn? You? People who are choosing to think like you? Me? People who are choosing to think like me? You clearly admit that a turn likely needs to be made. Is Ehrlich saying anything else? Or Herman Daly? That's exactly what they are saying.

You're advocating the development and use of alternative resources to fuel our growth. This is obvious. But that turn in the road must also incorporate a heightened sense of diminishing natural wealth, and the current turns in the road do not seem to be sharp enough. Determining when and where that turn is, which way it goes, and how sharp it is should be a process which weighs a lot of factors, many of which seem to be conveniently ignored. Unfortunately, many political ideologies benefit from ignoring certain factors.

Now really, what is the big deal about global warming and environment destruction?

Humans will die en masse, only maybe 10% will be left, and they will live in a different way than we do, to put it shortly.

It is a great hubris, in my view, to believe that humans have the power to destroy their environment (at large scale - meaning he planet) in the first place.

Having destroyed their micro-environment, it is an even greater hubris that they can restore it by their means.

There is overwhelming evidence that the planet we live in is changing, and the chages happening will cause problems for the human race.

There has not been, in my view again, overwhelming evidence that humans have actually caused this. I do not count academic researches and papers written in order to cash out subsidies or tenure positions.

And there is complete lack of evidence that humans could possibly reverse planetary scale changes, no matter how much they wish to, no matter how much funding they have.

I think we had better start thinking about surviving WITH global environment change, instead of spending our wit in order to understand the obscure and do the impossible.

If you are out of food for your children, and without a shelter for the night, you will probably stop worrying about whether society is or can be libertarian or whatever else.

There has not been, in my view again, overwhelming evidence that humans have actually caused this. I do not count academic researches and papers written in order to cash out subsidies or tenure positions.

We're supposed to be entering a new ice age, based upon the orbital dynamics of the Earth, the dynamics of its changing axis tilt, and Sun cycles. These are the natural causes of ice ages. Despite that, the last 100 years, coincident with the rise of the industrial age, show a very marked trend like increase in temperatures.

If any individual could predict how a voluntaryist society would address environmental issues, they would be well-qualified to lead a planned economy!

The more free a society is, the more possible courses of action its people can choose from, therefore the higher the chance of being able to pursue desirable outcomes.

You can take some comfort from some large-scale experiments. Consider West Germany vs. East Germany. After reunification it was clear that pollution and environmental degradation were much worse in the previously-communist East Germany. Prosperous people like to live in a nice environment, and are more likely to be able to achieve it.

Similarly, we can compare South vs North Korea, or Hong Kong vs Shanghai. In each case, the more free country or city is the less polluted one.

Now really, what is the big deal about global warming and environment destruction?

Exactly. As George Carlin put it, The earth is a self-correcting system. If we fuck it up, it will fuck us up, until we are no more, at which point, it will seek equilibrium again. Short of turning the surface into glass via nukes (And I'm not entirely certain even that would get everything), We are nothing more than a hiccup for this planet. You're not worried about destroying the ecosystem, you're worried about making the planet a place hostile to human life. Should humanity make the planet hostile to human life, we will either leave, or die. Either way, Planet keeps on trucking.

At this point, I would like to point out that back before 'the little ice age' British wines were out-performing the French ones. I would also like to point out that the age of the Dinosaurs was considerably warmer than the current climate, So, at least be honest about what you're concerned about. It isn't the planet. It's the coastal cities.

We've sustained unsustainable growth for centuries simply by changing the way we grow as needed and on schedule.

Centuries is not a particularly long time in human history. We had a brief period of access to nearly free energy because we were essentially granted access to millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy. That energy will quickly start having much smaller EROI over the next century. We could argue that other energy sources - nuclear solar hydro geo etc will take up the slack, but there is at least a fair possibility that they won't/can't.

Unless we redefine growth in terms of "development" rather than increasing of energy throughput, there's certainly a non-zero chance that we will see a reversion to the energy throughput of most of human history.

Unless we redefine growth in terms of "development" rather than increasing of energy throughput, there's certainly a non-zero chance that we will see a reversion to the energy throughput of most of human history.

You sound a lot like Herman Daly (which is a good thing): http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

If people care about it, which they clearly do, they will voluntarily devote their own resources to solving the problem, maybe even try to convince others to join in.

Whenever someone schemes about how to get my stuff in order to solve a problem they see I know they don't care much about it. When someone really cares about something they devote their own resources. It's easy to spend other people's money on garbage plans.

If people care about it, which they clearly do, they will voluntarily devote their own resources to solving the problem, maybe even try to convince others to join in.

Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. You can continue to hold this belief, but I challenge you to make a strong case for it here in this forum. I invite you to try though.

You think it's right to say that people care about things even if they refuse to work to fix or save them?

I'm not saying that people never lie. You will certainly meet people who claim to care about something, but if they only devote other people's resources to it they are just using the issue as cover.

There is no 'case' I can make. The way I tell what people care about is by watching what they do so I'm just always right on this. What is your way of telling what people care about? Listening to what they say?

What I mean to say, within the context of this thread, and requesting that you make a case for "where if people care about something, they will fix it" is this:

The first thing that is necessary for people to care about something is for them to realize it needs to be cared about. In other words, it needs to be clear that it is a relevant issue. Given the title of this thread, global warming is a great issue to use as an example.

Clearly, some people believe global warming exists and is caused by man. Others acknowledge it probably exists, but is not being caused by man. And yet others don't even believe it exists. So the first problem we have is lack of unity with regard to acknowledging the issue. Let's just suppose for a moment, regardless of your particular belief, that global warming is real and is caused by man. If that is the case, then something needs to be done, but it can't get done if we can't achieve agreement on the subject.

Following from that, we have an example of people wanting something (and trying wholeheartedly to educate others on the issue), but failing to get it. What are the elements that are preventing the people who want it from getting it? Skepticism, lack of education, greed, economic factors, etc.

Let's move on to environmental preserves, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or Patagonia. Let's just presuppose for a moment, that in any given year, 80 percent of the public wants these areas to be preserved. Let's assume that this desire continues from year to year, and allows policy to be enacted which prevents contaminating infrastructure from spoiling these areas. Such a situation might continue for many decades. Then, let's suppose, on some year in the future, public unity on the matter fractures, and there is only 40 percent in favor of preserving the preserves. Politicians, planners, economies, whatever, decide to move in and start doing business, drilling, damming, whatever, to the detriment of the land. Now, let's just suppose, that it was only a three year period in the future that preservation of these areas was unfavorable, and going forward, everyone agrees that, in reality, the areas should not have been encroached upon. Ah, but the damage was done. This is how our planet's natural abundance, complexity and diversity is slowly eroded.

Oh no! Look out for the nasty CO2 that Humans Exhale and Plants breathe!

You want to know how Libertarians would address it? By letting nature takes its natural course of rising and falling levels of CO2 through the eons. Because a Libertarian nation is not full of a bunch of fools falling for whatever Al Gore tells them we will get along just fine. And we'll beat anyone who wants to preach differently to us with they're own Hockey Sticks.

I asked this in a related thread and it didn't get addressed so I'll ask again here. How would a libertarian society address the problem of certain entities emitting enormous amounts of C02, leading to global warming?

An answer I've received elsewhere was that a libertarian society would allow you to sue power companies that output large amounts of C02. I don't like this answer for two reasons:

1) Depending on the type of libertarian society there may not be a court system the power company would agree to be sued in, and they might not obey the decision anyway.

2) Even individual power companies don't emit enough C02 to noticeably affect global C02 levels. Global C02 levels only get measurably affected by the combined output of hundreds of the coal burning plants in the world. You would have to simultaneously sue every power company in the world, which is completely impossible right now and would be even harder still in a world with less centralization.

How would a libertarian political order address this? And more generally, how would it address the problems that arise when a great number of parties each contribute small amounts of pollution into common resources?

Oh no! Look out for the nasty CO2 that Humans Exhale and Plants breathe!

You want to know how Libertarians would address it? By letting nature takes its natural course of rising and falling levels of CO2 through the eons. Because a Libertarian nation is not full of a bunch of fools falling for whatever Al Gore tells them we will get along just fine. And we'll beat anyone who wants to preach differently to us with they're own Hockey Sticks.

Thank you for making my point. A classic example of how an ideology will destroy the planet.

Oh no! Look out for the nasty CO2 that Humans Exhale and Plants breathe!

You want to know how Libertarians would address it? By letting nature takes its natural course of rising and falling levels of CO2 through the eons. Because a Libertarian nation is not full of a bunch of fools falling for whatever Al Gore tells them we will get along just fine. And we'll beat anyone who wants to preach differently to us with they're own Hockey Sticks.

Thank you for making my point. A classic example of how an ideology will destroy the planet.

It's kind of like how cigarettes don't cause cancer, it's ok to dump heavy metals in the local river, coal dust never hurt anyone, asbestos is perfectly safe, etc.

The ability of dogmatic people to be willfully ignorant and ignore facts should never be underestimated.

If not, how do you know resources are diminishing? It seems we're finding new resources at least as fast as we're using them up.

Sure. The Singularity will arise, and provide us with the technology to build a space faring species, resulting in a solar system wide economy, enveloping first the Asteroid Belt, then the gas giants, then the Kuiper Belt, then the Oort Cloud, then the nearby stars, ultimately resulting in a trans-human diaspora across the Milky Way. The Human Experience will ultimately harness the power of stars, and most of us will live in Dyson Spheres until the heat death of the Universe.

But until such time, the Earth is where it's at.

Oil will be more expensive without government subsidies. Alternate energy sources, no longer with a subsidized competitor, would be competitive in the marketplace and something would take its place, making it obsolete and removing the problem.

you manage to completely ignore coal, which is cheap like borscht, and thus is not going to be functionally competed against by unsubsidized renewable energy.

Since CO2 doesn't cause Cancer, contribute to Heavy Metal Toxicity, Produce Coal Dust or Asbestos does anyone know what this guy in on about?

It causes global warming. You're the poster child for global warming deniers, and this is why the libertarian notion that the environment will be fine under a libertarian system is fallacy. Libertarians contend that there should be enough freedom for people to do as they wish on their own watch, without intervention. Given that there will always be deniers, and those who choose to wear blinders (often to gain financial advantage), then things will inevitably go south.

Please read this post I made a little ways above for more information: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg320869#msg320869

Looks like I've caused a Global Warming Cultist to out himself. My friend you are intellectually lazy if you cannot be bothered to do proper information gathering on the issue.

Even the people who started this Global Warming farce to make money of Carbon Credits have changed the term to Climate Change now because of being so embarrassed by the facts and being outed as fools and liars.

Since CO2 doesn't cause Cancer, contribute to Heavy Metal Toxicity, Produce Coal Dust or Asbestos does anyone know what this guy in on about?

It causes global warming. You're the poster child for global warming deniers, and this is why the libertarian notion that the environment will be fine under a libertarian system is fallacy. Libertarians contend that there should be enough freedom for people to do as they wish on their own watch, without intervention. Given that there will always be deniers, and those who choose to wear blinders (often to gain financial advantage), then things will inevitably go south.

Please read this post I made a little ways above for more information: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg320869#msg320869

Looks like I've caused a Global Warming Cultist to out himself. My friend you are intellectually lazy if you cannot be bothered to do proper information gathering on the issue.

Even the people who started this Global Warming farce to make money of Carbon Credits have changed the term to Climate Change now because of being so embarrassed by the facts and being outed as fools and liars.

Even the people who started this Global Warming farce to make money of Carbon Credits have changed the term to Climate Change now because of being so embarrassed by the facts and being outed as fools and liars.

Honestly, the only people clinging to your vision of Global Warming as being a sham are those who want an excuse to continue to pollute. Back when those emails were being released, here's what really happened:

1. Scientists realized the actions of a few would cast a huge blow to the process of education on the subject, and they realized that those who never wanted to believe in it in the first place, such as yourself, would use it as a means to vindicate themselves.

2. Scientists, climatologists, and in general, everyone in the scientific community knew that all the data still pointed to Global Warming.

3. The term Climate Change was adopted due to bad PR, nothing else.

4. Those who stood a chance to influence policy change in such a way that they could continue to pollute and thus improve their bottom line took advantage of the negative publicity with regard to Global Warming at the time to further their goals, by engaging in various campaigns. Conservatively oriented talk radio jumped on the bandwagon as well, further undermining the support for Global Warming.

5. Individuals such as yourself, eager to be on the bandwagon listed in point number 4 above, still cling to the misinformation which was heavily spun at the time.

6. Those who have a job to do with regard to actual research on Global Warming (err, Climate Change), know it's global warming, and continue to do their work. And the scientifically literate politicians are pretty much in solid agreement over global warming as a real issue that needs to be dealt with.

In other words, your fantasy that some bad PR from some two years ago has rendered Global Warming false is just that, a fantasy. And you have the nerve to accuse me of not keeping up with facts.

You should be thankful that I'm willing to write out so many posts to you. I hope you've had a chance to read the one I made above.

Global Warming is a scientific topic. Here's some genuine advice regarding scientific topics: immerse yourself in the scientific literature to better understand it. The academics aren't out to fool you. The peer review process works. So, if you want to discuss the topic and have your opinion respected, then don't restrict your information gathering on the subject to organizations such as FOX news or other such media outlets.

There is plenty of data on the subject. Try and stay with respected scientific sources.

Lol Respected ofcourse means those sellout scientists who tout what they are told to by those pushing the Global Warming Scam. Hence the whole Climategate scandal where they were caught lying and falsifying data. Sorry I'm not going to pander to your GW propaganda. Your House of Cards has already fallen I don't know why you bother to defend it.

I've seen and heard both arguments, and seen lies exposed on only one side of that argument(crippling it). Can you guess which? You may keep your Hockey Stick. Oh and you may keep your Darwin Awards as well.

You should be thankful that I'm willing to write out so many posts to you. I hope you've had a chance to read the one I made above.

Global Warming is a scientific topic. Here's some genuine advice regarding scientific topics: immerse yourself in the scientific literature to better understand it. The academics aren't out to fool you. The peer review process works. So, if you want to discuss the topic and have your opinion respected, then don't restrict your information gathering on the subject to organizations such as FOX news or other such media outlets.

There is plenty of data on the subject. Try and stay with respected scientific sources.

I haven't jumped on any train :), but still, the supposed cause-and-effect relationship between human activity and climate change (global warming if you want to call it) is nothing more than a conjecture at the moment. I've read tens of articles in the past few years that make huge assumptions to provide emotional-response reasoning for their undoubtfully true natural findings (ending up in a human-made climate change conclusion).

I don't doubt climate change; I see it happening.

But it seems to me that TheGer's and Ascent's positioning are two sides of the same coin and both do not hold the answer: One goes into denial and will look for anything that will confirm his ideas that the whole thing stinks, and the other goes into self- and collective- blaming of the human race for something that is, IMHO, far bigger than what our mistakes of the last 200 years could have ever caused (thus blame that is unfair).

One is led to not care about the facts which should be obvious, the other is led to carry this burden in him for ever, being that even as a global community we could not possibly change the slightest thing on a planetary scale.

Both will be disappointed and disillusioned in the end.

In the end, it's our passion for learning and finding the whys and the hows that will reveal what is the truth of the matter. And time of course, the tamer of all things (according to an ancient Greek epithet assigned to Time).

When you intellectual elite discover that Temperature increase causes more CO2 to be produced, not the other way around you'll be on the road to recovery. Throughout the history of this planet rises in temperature are followed by CO2 increases. The Oceans and Land exchange CO2 constantly with the Atmosphere at a level dwarfing what Humans produce by magnitudes, so please stop peddling your propaganda so you can cash in on all those Carbon Credits(otherwise known as the Global Tax).

When you intellectual elite discover that Temperature increase causes more CO2 to be produced, not the other way around you'll be on the road to recovery. Throughout the history of this planet rises in temperature are followed by CO2 increases. The Oceans and Land exchange CO2 constantly with the Atmosphere at a level dwarfing what Humans produce by magnitudes, so please stop peddling your propaganda so you can cash in on all those Carbon Credits(otherwise known as the Global Tax).

It does. The individuals who recognize this oncoming disaster will curtail their damage, and encourage others to do so as well. Those who agree will avoid the ones who don't, and if enough agree, disaster will be averted. Or it won't. Either way, Planet keeps on chugging, regardless of what we do. It's not 'Save the Planet!'. it's 'Save the Status Quo!!'

It does. The individuals who recognize this oncoming disaster will curtail their damage, and encourage others to do so as well. Those who agree will avoid the ones who don't, and if enough agree, disaster will be averted. Or it won't. Either way, Planet keeps on chugging, regardless of what we do. It's not 'Save the Planet!'. it's 'Save the Status Quo!!'

there's a problem with that.

Quote

The individuals who recognize this oncoming disaster will curtail their damage, and encourage others to do so as well.

those who profit the most...

1.) don't care, because they've got theirs.2.) are in the upper 1% of wealth-holders on the planet, and want more.3.) are in the upper 1% of political power-holders, and won't let go of that.4.) are willing to bribe, steal, kill, lie and cheat to keep their power and wealth. and5.) won't get caught, since they write the laws.

did you know that there was actually a law proposed, banning the ownership of geiger-counters (and other, benign detection devices) in New York?

I wasn't talking about current New York. I know how screwed up the current situation is.

In a libertarian/AnCap society, everyone would have equal opportunity to do whatever they want, and no ability to force people to do or not do anything. Which includes sell Geiger counters and other monitoring equipment.

Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?

in a very real sense, i take that question to mean:

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

...because global warming is no longer an idle speculation. and the immense resources devoted to the denial industry (and it is an industry) simply cannot be looked at as an exercise in free-market capitalism.

4.) are willing to bribe, steal, kill, lie and cheat to keep their power and wealth. and5.) won't get caught, since they write the laws.

that?

What does that have to do with a Libertarian society?

nothing. but those kinds of people exist in all societies, and always will. the cream (that is, expressed neutrally) will rise to the top: the toughest, the most able, or those born with the most advantages, etc. and that will be the same in any society, from communist to libertarian. whoever is good enough or smart enough to beat the system, wins.

Disraeli and Stalin were both perfect examples - street punks and infighters.

so again...

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

because that's really the question.

so that's the answer i want. it should translate to any more-or-less free society.

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

Practices such as clear-cutting and pollution are not long-term profitable. If you clear cut all your trees for paper, you can't make more paper next year. If you pollute the crap out of your land, you can't sell it to someone else. Private ownership of resources is the best way to ensure their conservation.

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

because that's really the question.

so that's the answer i want. it should translate to any more-or-less free society.

Sadly, I think the answer is: They wouldn't.

Any economic system which places a heavy emphasis on freedom to earn money without intervention from other sources will always contain a large number of entities who choose to pick the low hanging fruit, until there are no more low hanging fruit, at which point, the fruit that is now the lowest hanging will be picked, etc.

The ultimate libertarian society that likely caused catastrophic worldwide damage existed in the late Pleistocene. The overkill hypothesis states that all megafauna extinctions in Europe and the Americas occurred due to the expanding diaspora of man. To be clear, megafauna refers to animals such as mammoths, rhinos, giant sloths, etc. Cro-magnon culture gave birth to highly efficient hunting in a realm where the megafauna had not evolved along side the hunters, and thus the megafauna did not naturally fear man. This is why the emigration of mankind into Europe and the Americas wiped out these animals. Note that Africa seems to be the only continent in which megafauna still exist, precisely because man coevolved alongside the megafauna there.

Private ownership of resources is the best way to ensure their conservation.

even non-renewable resources?

i suspect not. where is the advantage to exxon's CEO - who will get a multi-billion dollar bonus depending on sales - to conserve oil? he'll only be in his position for five or so years, and he worked all his life to get there. and the next guy?

we agree, more or less, on renewables.

people who own trees or water or other renewables are essentially farmers - albeit of a different sort than a food-farmer. but yes - their advantage lies in conservation.

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

because that's really the question.

so that's the answer i want. it should translate to any more-or-less free society.

Sadly, I think the answer is: They wouldn't.

Any economic system which places a heavy emphasis on freedom to earn money without intervention from other sources will always contain a large number of entities who choose to pick the low hanging fruit, until there are no more low hanging fruit, at which point, the fruit that is now the lowest hanging will be picked, etc.

The ultimate libertarian society that likely caused catastrophic worldwide damage existed in the late Pleistocene. The overkill hypothesis states that all megafauna extinctions in Europe and the Americas occurred due to the expanding diaspora of man. To be clear, megafauna refers to animals such as mammoths, rhinos, giant sloths, etc. Cro-magnon culture gave birth to highly efficient hunting in a realm where the megafauna had not evolved along side the hunters, and thus the megafauna did not naturally fear man. This is why the emigration of mankind into Europe and the Americas wiped out these animals. Note that Africa seems to be the only continent in which megafauna still exist, precisely because man coevolved alongside the megafauna there.

Excellent point and example. The near extention of American Mid-West animals like bison, prairie dogs, and gray wolves are other excellent examples. According to the libertarians in this thread, the hunters will naturally realize that they're going to kill off all their supply and self-limit their own hunting. History disagrees, because hunters hunted these animals until they couldn't find anymore.

In a Libertarian society people would be well educated enough in science to realize that global warming is designed as a tool to push a tax scheme, not environmental policy, and that the earth is heating because of increased solar activity, not because of human activity.

Excellent point and example. The near extention of American Mid-West animals like bison, prairie dogs, and gray wolves are other excellent examples. According to the libertarians in this thread, the hunters will naturally realize that they're going to kill off all their supply and self-limit their own hunting. History disagrees, because hunters hunted these animals until they couldn't find anymore.

What's so aggravating is that they are blind to it happening all around them everyday. The "New Normal" becomes the norm, and then further depletion tomorrow brings about the "New Normal", and it continues until there is nothing. As I've pointed out, there are pressures to start exploiting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Patagonia right now. And it just continues.

Excellent point and example. The near extention of American Mid-West animals like bison, prairie dogs, and gray wolves are other excellent examples. According to the libertarians in this thread, the hunters will naturally realize that they're going to kill off all their supply and self-limit their own hunting. History disagrees, because hunters hunted these animals until they couldn't find anymore.

What's so aggravating is that they are blind to it happening all around them everyday. The "New Normal" becomes the norm, and then further depletion tomorrow brings about the "New Normal", and it continues until there is nothing. As I've pointed out, there are pressures to start exploiting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Patagonia right now. And it just continues.

That's why it's also the perfect example of a real-world slippery slope.

That free markets DO NOT handle environmental issues is absolutely beyond debate. There is historical record that proves this, dating back to the first keeping of historical records. As you correctly pointed out, the free market will always go for the lowest hanging fruit. Strip mining with blatant disregard for the planet is another good example of companies decimating the evironment because it is the easiest and more profitable way to do business. It takes active government intervention to force mining businesses to be less invasive and damaging to the environment.

This is why we need government intervention in areas like alternative fuels, because the free market won't give two shits about alternative fuels until oil supply actually become a significant issue - at which point the development of alternative fuel sources will be a day late and dollar short.

Again, this stuff is undeniable. Just look at WHY companies outsource to third-world countries. Because you relocate to bumfuckastan, you'll be allowed to dump your waste in the local river, pollute the air as much as you want, decimate forests and local wildlife, no one will care if your facility is dangerous and kills workers, etc. That's what the free market WANTS, and they relocate to nations that will let them do it.

That free markets DO NOT handle environmental issues is absolutely beyond debate. There is historical record that proves this, dating back to the first keeping of historical records. As you correctly pointed out, the free market will always go for the lowest hanging fruit. Strip mining with blatant disregard for the planet is another good example of companies decimating the evironment because it is the easiest and more profitable way to do business. It takes active government intervention to force mining businesses to be less invasive and damaging to the environment.

Why do you care if a company strip mines their own land? And if they harm other people's land in the process, your gripe is with the legal system, not the market.

7. And most importantly, by picking this low hanging piece of fruit, it's no longer there for prosperity. He would've been better off abstaining, and biting the bullet by developing more efficient technologies which would obviate the need to strip mine in the first place.

1. Perhaps the owner will die one day, and someone else would like to the owner of it?

Do you really want to adopt the general principle that people may not damage their own property because others might like it after they die?

Quote

2. Perhaps the vegetation and ecosystem which was stripped off of it contained information in its natural complexity that current technology could not understand, but future technology will.

Sure, and perhaps not strip mining will cause damage that we cannot currently understand. If you're going to get to just make up things based on nothing, well I can make up things in the other direction too.

Quote

3. Perhaps the drainage networks that the land depends upon on either side are severely disrupted, resulting in issues downstream.

If they damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

Quote

4. Perhaps it disrupts the migration routes of fauna, which has a disruptive effect on the ecology outside of the owner's jurisdiction.

If they're allowed to damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

Quote

5. Perhaps his mining equipment pollutes the environment, both in the air and in the water, which flows downstream.

If they're allowed to damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

If he's allowed to disturb other people, your gripe is with the justice system, not the free market.

Quote

7. And most importantly, by picking this low hanging piece of fruit, it's no longer there for prosperity. He would've been better off abstaining, and biting the bullet by developing more efficient technologies which would obviate the need to strip mine in the first place.

That's completely pointless. We're much better off making ourselves more prosperous so there will be a prosperity. Delaying technological innovation to conserve resources that are unlikely to even have any use in the future is completely pointless. When we solve fusion, all the coal, oil, and gas we conserved will have been for nothing. And every extra day it takes us to get there is more misery, suffering, and damage.

7. And most importantly, by picking this low hanging piece of fruit, it's no longer there for prosperity. He would've been better off abstaining, and biting the bullet by developing more efficient technologies which would obviate the need to strip mine in the first place.

all yes.

* sigh *

10-15,000 years of civilization, more or less - and we still refuse to do things without burning shit. even though now the tech exists to conduct ourselves otherwise.

...leaving entirely aside the small matter of 'ownership'. you can own dirt? really? that always kinda gave me pause...

ownership is really the right to borrow a government's capacity for violence against trespassers, no? until some trespasser with more money than you wants something on your land. eminent domain. mineral rights. water. easements. it's all bullshit.

there may be no greater failure of one's humanity than accepting the commodification of The Commons.

7. And most importantly, by picking this low hanging piece of fruit, it's no longer there for prosperity. He would've been better off abstaining, and biting the bullet by developing more efficient technologies which would obviate the need to strip mine in the first place.

Basically this, all of this.

Case in point: We've got quite a problem ( newfound problem) with bears and an emerging issue with mountain lions in my area (area meaning the entire central part of the state). This problem is entirely due to excessive new home building in previously heavily wooded areas. The habitat of the bears and cats is being destroyed in favor of MORE new homes (yup, why not build more new ones when we can't even sell the supply we've got). The home builders are building these homes on THEIR OWN land, obviously. However, their poor decision making affects me in multiple ways - the most obvious of which is the wildlife now wandering through my backyard. So what someone chooses to do on THEIR OWN land, tens of miles away from my land, negatively affects me directly. It also has more indirect affects. This increased supply of homes lowers the potential selling price of my home. It destroys large forest areas that were an important ecosystem to the area I live in. As more animals wander out and end up getting killed or relocated, the evironment around me changes for the worse. All because of what someone did on THEIR OWN land.

No man (and no piece of land) is an island unto himself. The sooner the liberkids learn this, the better off they'll be.

Do you really want to adopt the general principle that people may not damage their own property because others might like it after they die?

Are we referring to whether you plant a tree or pour a concrete pad on your quarter acre already zoned for residential use? Or are we referring to 500,000 acres (or even 500) of as of yet uncontaminated wilderness? Because although in principle the issue might be the same, practically speaking, they are not. My arguments lean towards the latter, rather than the former. Once we clarify that point, we can continue.

Quote

Sure, and perhaps not strip mining will cause damage that we cannot currently understand. If you're going to get to just make up things based on nothing, well I can make up things in the other direction too.

No, you don't get a pass on that one. Otherwise, I could argue that perhaps me causing destruction at some random location might result in getting the attention of some little kid riding his bicycle, and by doing so, he didn't ride his bike down Crocker Street at the other end of town and get run over by a car. We can entertain hypotheticals all day long if you want.

Quote

If they damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

This is a classical reactive stance, rather than proactive. Damage done is damage already done. You may not be in a position to rectify the damages done. Nor is it likely that you will even compensate others for the interim even if you can rectify the damage done.

Quote

If they're allowed to damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

See above.

Quote

If they're allowed to damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

See above.

Quote

If he's allowed to disturb other people, your gripe is with the justice system, not the free market.

See above.

Quote

That's completely pointless. We're much better off making ourselves more prosperous so there will be a prosperity. Delaying technological innovation to conserve resources that are unlikely to even have any use in the future is completely pointless. When we solve fusion, all the coal, oil, and gas we conserved will have been for nothing. And every extra day it takes us to get there is more misery, suffering, and damage.

Your completely laissez-faire system will continue to pick the low hanging fruit rather than self impose restrictions upon itself. By doing so, it actually delays the solving of problems like fusion, instead of accelerating them.

People would have more money to spend on projects they believe in perhaps some even 4 times as much. More money would flow to entrepreneurial projects and also charity. When taxes are lowered, that amount gets higher. You wouldn't have these big state funded corrupt "authority" organizations controlled by few people.

You are correct that more wealth would allow more people to engage in projects beneficial to creating a sustainable economy. But you are incorrect in assuming that more wealth would eliminate the existence of entities which continue to pick the low hanging fruit, and engage in unsustainable activities which ever erode our natural wealth.

This is a classical reactive stance, rather than proactive. Damage done is damage already done. You may not be in a position to rectify the damages done. Nor is it likely that you will even compensate others for the interim even if you can rectify the damage done.

Silly libertarians, only wanting to punish crime that has actually been committed.

Silly libertarians, only wanting to punish crime that has actually been committed.

Is that really our disagreement? I think it's more along the lines of what constitutes damage and what doesn't. If you believe doing X is not detrimental, and I do, then there exists a difficulty in determining what those laws are governing X. It seems clear to me that both groups are not in disagreement over following laws, but what those laws are and who enforces them. I've been rather clear on what X is, what it does, why it should be prevented, and how.

Silly libertarians, only wanting to punish crime that has actually been committed.

Is that really our disagreement? I think it's more along the lines of what constitutes damage and what doesn't. If you believe doing X is not detrimental, and I do, then there exists a difficulty in determining what those laws are governing X. It seems clear to me that both groups are not in disagreement over following laws, but what those laws are and who enforces them. I've been rather clear on what X is, what it does, why it should be prevented, and how.

I think you may be right here. I contend you have no right to sue because I ruined your scenic drive to work. You seem to disagree.

I suggest that if you would like a company to not strip mine a patch of land, that you give that company an economic incentive. I'm sure, if you get enough like-minded people together, you could make up the cost difference between strip-mining and more 'gentle' ways of doing it, with very little individual cost.

Silly libertarians, only wanting to punish crime that has actually been committed.

Is that really our disagreement? I think it's more along the lines of what constitutes damage and what doesn't. If you believe doing X is not detrimental, and I do, then there exists a difficulty in determining what those laws are governing X. It seems clear to me that both groups are not in disagreement over following laws, but what those laws are and who enforces them. I've been rather clear on what X is, what it does, why it should be prevented, and how.

I think you may be right here. I contend you have no right to sue because I ruined your scenic drive to work. You seem to disagree.

I suggest that if you would like a company to not strip mine a patch of land, that you give that company an economic incentive. I'm sure, if you get enough like-minded people together, you could make up the cost difference between strip-mining and more 'gentle' ways of doing it, with very little individual cost.

You mean like establish a government and regulatory agencies to fine the company if it harms the environment too much? Sounds like a great idea! How would we go about getting this new idea rolling? Oh wait....

I suggest that if you would like a company to not strip mine a patch of land, that you give that company an economic incentive. I'm sure, if you get enough like-minded people together, you could make up the cost difference between strip-mining and more 'gentle' ways of doing it, with very little individual cost.

You mean like establish a government and regulatory agencies to fine the company if it harms the environment too much? Sounds like a great idea! How would we go about getting this new idea rolling? Oh wait....

I advocate asking people who agree with you to help defray the cost of paying off the company for it's extra costs.

You advocate hitting people over the head and taking their money whether they agree or not and using that money to force the company to comply.

I wrote before "You wouldn't have these big state funded corrupt "authority" organizations controlled by few people".

So what exactly would you have? Because I'm not clear on this.

Quote

Most species that has ever lived on Earth are now extinct - most of them not due to human activities.

I think we're in agreement that any species that went extinct prior to humans existing on this planet did not go extinct due to humans. Let's refrain from discussing the extinction of species prior to the existence of humans, as I'm sure that if you try, you can find more species extinction events in a period of time spanning billions of years, then say, the last 13,000 years.

However, if you wish to engage in a discussion about species extinction events in any given 13,000 year period, precluding exceedingly rare and cataclysmic events such as asteroid impacts that occur on average every 70 million years, then I think we can have a discussion. Pick your 13,000 year period. I've picked mine. It started 13,000 years ago.

Quote

The planet has been through worse things than humans since its creation.

Yes, it has. Giant asteroid impacts, of which there have been a few. Totally irrelevant within the context of discussing the effects one species, society or civilization has upon the world's ecosystem.

Quote

If by sustainable activities we mean activities that reduce the well being of people and animals, don't you see that happening today even with all the governments, laws, and police forces?

Yes, I do. It's due to human nature and greed. These things are not going to disappear in your fantasy utopia of libertarian governance. And let's be clear on what sustainable activities means. It's not just the well being of people and animals, although that is a part; it is the preservation of ecosystems which enable the natural processes of those ecosystems to continue to function.

I would encourage you to view the ideal economic system as an animal which lives in a symbiotic relationship with its environment, where that animal (the economy) has a digestive system which inputs nutrients into its digestive system and outputs waste which must be reabsorbed into the environment in such a way that the animal can continue its existence without biting the hand that feeds it.

because everybody knows that actual, working climate scientists are all liars, and getting rich off a secret blockchain started by al gore. have i mentioned that he's fat yet?

uh-huh.

One thing I learned about my short stint in academia is that most scientists are not so much concerned about truth finding as fulfilling arbitrary publication quotas and intellectual feather puffing. Forget the pursuit of knowledge. Science is primarily about egos!

The incentives of the whole scientific establishment are screwed up. Even scientists themselves admit that the majority of publications are trash.

In an inexact science like climate science, bias is almost inevitable because there are few rewards for objectivity and big rewards for exaggeration and populism. I'm not saying that there is some great conspiracy; most scientists are probably biased without even noticing it themselves.

Having said that, there are a few notable exceptions (the true geniuses), and there is some objectivity to the scientific consensus. It should just be taken with a great deal of skepticism.

Anthropogenic global warming probably is real, it's just far less predictable than climate scientist would like it to be.

The planet has been through worse things than humans since its creation.

Yes, it has. Giant asteroid impacts, of which there have been a few. Totally irrelevant within the context of discussing the effects one species, society or civilization has upon the world's ecosystem.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm certain though that is not the effect one species can have on the environment though, as you and I both know that the human species has had catastrophic effects on the world's ecosystem. We've gone over this.

Humans make planet unfit for Human life, Human life either moves out, or dies off, Planet returns to equilibrium. Long term effect to planet: nil.

So to be clear then, you're outlining two scenarios and one consequence.

Scenario 1. We die.

Scenario 2. We have to have the tech to go live off the planet, and find satisfaction in that.

Consequence: The Earth heals, but after we're gone.

Neither scenario one or two stand out as desirable solutions, so I can't see how you're winning your case by proposing them. As for the consequence, it all sounds good, but how do we in the here and now benefit from it?

Neither scenario one or two stand out as desirable solutions, so I can't see how you're winning your case by proposing them. As for the consequence, it all sounds good, but how do we in the here and now benefit from it?

No, neither scenario is particularly pleasant. Here's a third: You make a way to do something without damaging the environment, that is as or more efficient than one that does, and make a whole load of money in the process.

Even the people who started this Global Warming farce to make money of Carbon Credits have changed the term to Climate Change now because of being so embarrassed by the facts and being outed as fools and liars.

I doubt scientists had carbon credits reflecting in their eyes in the 1960's when they started actively studying global warming. And the concept goes back even further - Joseph Fourier came up with it in 1824.

In the 1980's global warming was already accepted more or less as a fact, but in general it was thought there would still be plenty of time.

The "sceptic" camp has only been vocal for the past ten years, really, though they slowly started to appear in the 1990's, right around the time it started to look like there would be strong world-wide will to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This would hurt profits from oil and coal badly, so it's no surprise that practically the whole climate sceptic camp is funded by them:

Here's a third: You make a way to do something without damaging the environment, that is as or more efficient than one that does, and make a whole load of money in the process.

I agree. So you've come around completely to my view, which is that of ecological economics, as put forth by Herman Daly?

Hey, as long as you're not knocking heads to get your way, I'm OK with it. Hell, if you run an ad campaign that convinces people to use less efficient methods because they value the Environment. Just don't force anyone to do anything.

Hey, as long as you're not knocking heads to get your way, I'm OK with it. Hell, if you run an ad campaign that convinces people to use less efficient methods because they value the Environment. Just don't force anyone to do anything.

These are my beliefs:

The ecosystem is an asset, in many ways.

Picking the low hanging fruit in excess disrupts the ecosystem in irreversible ways.

It is human nature to pick the low hanging fruit, thus education is necessary, and regulation.

By imposing stringent regulation, there is a rush to develop efficient alternatives to living off of the low hanging fruit.

There is a lot of money and power who have short term goals, and would prefer to pick the low hanging fruit. These are self motivated individuals and entities, and they will prey upon the general ignorance of the masses by creating massive campaigns to lead others to believe that preservation of the world's ecosystems are not a priority. They further have the advantage by arguing that regulations will cause higher prices. It is easy to buy into this, but in the end it is exploitation, both of the public, and the ecosystems.

Note to point number one: it may be reversible over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, but in the shorter term, which is the world we live in, it is essentially irreversible.

Well, at first it'll just be a nicely worded letter. Then the letters will get nastier. Eventually, some people in blue costumes will come kidnap you or kill you if you defend yourself. It'll all be your fault though, for not listening to your betters.

In Denmark you see this in action in the telecommunications industry. A new company is started, is more adaptive to consumer needs, is more efficient, takes away business from the big players, and eventually sells to one of the big players for a lot of money because the big players are losing a lot of revenue. New entrepreneurs notice an opportunity and then does the same.

What would happen if all the big players said to every newcomer "screw you, we're not letting you connect to our network at all, good luck selling your service if your customers can't actually talk to anyone with it"? The newcomer wouldn't last long. This happened in the US to a certain extent, by the way, and is why there are telecom monopolies there.

Fortunately, it appears the telecom industry in Denmark is quite heavily regulated.

In Denmark you see this in action in the telecommunications industry. A new company is started, is more adaptive to consumer needs, is more efficient, takes away business from the big players, and eventually sells to one of the big players for a lot of money because the big players are losing a lot of revenue. New entrepreneurs notice an opportunity and then does the same.

What would happen if all the big players said to every newcomer "screw you, we're not letting you connect to our network at all, good luck selling your service if your customers can't actually talk to anyone with it"? The newcomer wouldn't last long. This happened in the US to a certain extent, by the way, and is why there are telecom monopolies there.

Fortunately, it appears the telecom industry in Denmark is quite heavily regulated.

That isn't the only industry in which this is an issue.

How about roads and rails? How would one go about NOT having a monopoly on roads and rails? Is there supposed to be ten redundant railroad tracks next to each other, one for each rail company? Are we going to build redundant road systems for each privately own road company?

How about sewage and water? Do we need fifteen redundant water lines running through every street for each water company? Are we going to multiple sewer lines, multiple catch basins, etc. for each sewage company?

This would be such a laughably ridiculous, totally impractal, and wasted resource world.

Ascent. Those links have nothing directly to do with my previous post to yours, so I can only assume you meant to post it as information. Please provide a link to the factual data those links present to be true. I read all 3 and no link is present in any of the articles.

I wonder though, how much of the information presented there is information that was shown to be falsified in Climategate.

In Denmark you see this in action in the telecommunications industry. A new company is started, is more adaptive to consumer needs, is more efficient, takes away business from the big players, and eventually sells to one of the big players for a lot of money because the big players are losing a lot of revenue. New entrepreneurs notice an opportunity and then does the same.

What would happen if all the big players said to every newcomer "screw you, we're not letting you connect to our network at all, good luck selling your service if your customers can't actually talk to anyone with it"? The newcomer wouldn't last long. This happened in the US to a certain extent, by the way, and is why there are telecom monopolies there.

Fortunately, it appears the telecom industry in Denmark is quite heavily regulated.

They would lay down their own lines in a localized area and expand from there.

The US has telecom monopolies because the US government literally gave AT&T a monopoly and only removed it recently (relatively recently, anyway). Also, various regulations regarding the last kilometre, starting a telecom company, etc.

At the turn of the century, the US had thousands of telephone companies, and AT&T only had 51% market share despite having started with practically 100%. There was plenty of competition, and remember that this was back when they had just been invented. Then the US government took over all of the privately run telephone lines and gave them to AT&T.

There was also competition among electric companies, despite electricity generation being an entirely new industry.

At the turn of the century, the US had thousands of telephone companies...

You're missing the point. Those thousands of telephone companies were not in competition with each other. They were regional.

There is a reason that the government allows one utility to have a monopoly. It's because of economies of scale. It is more cost effective to have one set of lines (gas, water, telephone, cable, power, sewer) then to have multiple. Someone has to invest in that infrastructure. Obviously, you don't believe it should be the government, which is fine. So, some business does it. Now, to prevent them from having power over you, there needs to be some type of regulation.

At the turn of the century, the US had thousands of telephone companies...

You're missing the point. Those thousands of telephone companies were not in competition with each other. They were regional.

There is a reason that the government allows one utility to have a monopoly. It's because of economies of scale. It is more cost effective to have one set of lines (gas, water, telephone, cable, power, sewer) then to have multiple. Someone has to invest in that infrastructure. Obviously, you don't believe it should be the government, which is fine. So, some business does it. Now, to prevent them from having power over you, there needs to be some type of regulation.

Yes they were. Most of those telephone companies were regional, but "most" of 4,000 leaves quite a bit of competition. Furthermore, most of those regional telephone lines were branching out when the Federal government took them over (AT&T actively encouraged the government to do so, and if they didn't have any competition they obviously wouldn't bother).

Also, around the same time there was plenty of competition among gas, power, etc companies as well. Baltimore had many such companies, it was only in 1893 when the gas and energy companies were monopolized around a single large competitor that had been lagging behind and used government influence to grant itself a charter. A gas or energy company of the time having power over you (at least in the long term) would have been a laughable prospect. Your argument has no clothes.

I wonder though, how much of the information presented there is information that was shown to be falsified in Climategate.

Climategate is old news. Seriously. For the scientific community, it's business as usual, which means that research continues as it has.

If you want to post recent material that isn't from a conspiracy rag that clearly shows that the current consensus on Global Warming is highly questionable, then please do so.

I wasn't aware that facts become less valid if they aren't brand new news. I also don't know if I would call The new York Times a "conspiracy rag". Your "current consensus" is an illusion parroted all over the media without factual basis. I mean my god man, you are quoting Al Gore's talking points word for word. Ever try thinking for yourself?

I wasn't aware that facts become less valid if they aren't brand new news. I also don't know if I would call The new York Times a "conspiracy rag". Your "current consensus" is an illusion parroted all over the media without factual basis. I mean my god man, you are quoting Al Gore's talking points word for word. Ever try thinking for yourself?

I don't really care that much for Al Gore, nor do I ever seek him out to listen to or read. Tell me, do you ever immerse yourself into the scientific community, it's journals, etc.? Or do you just selectively seek your news from media which is largely supported by those who support the Republican party, such as Fox news?

Your 'facts' which you claim do not become less valid, were never facts, but big corporations spreading misinformation and capitalizing on some missteps made by a fraction of scientists, who felt compelled to polish the numbers of some studies, because of their frustration in being up against big corporate money.

You have two choices: follow the scientific community, and what they're saying, or big money, which is obviously motivated by the concept of making money.

Take your blinders off, and try and be critical of your idea about global warming, because only about 10 percent in the scientific community actually interpret the data somewhat in line with how you do. Notably, a large percentage of scientists who are petroleum geologists. Hmm, imagine that.

It's amazing how much misinformation can be spread by corporations who have a huge amount of money at stake. However, it doesn't take a brilliant mind to realize that.

I think some people just have a difficult time weeding out the garbage from legitimate material. It helps if you take an active interest in the subject, rather than following your nose in response to seeking out questionable material that dovetails with your political agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those who fell for the argument that melting ice won't cause sea levels to rise.

I wasn't aware that facts become less valid if they aren't brand new news. I also don't know if I would call The new York Times a "conspiracy rag". Your "current consensus" is an illusion parroted all over the media without factual basis. I mean my god man, you are quoting Al Gore's talking points word for word. Ever try thinking for yourself?

I don't really care that much for Al Gore, nor do I ever seek him out to listen to or read. Tell me, do you ever immerse yourself into the scientific community, it's journals, etc.? Or do you just selectively seek your news from media which is largely supported by those who support the Republican party, such as Fox news?

Your 'facts' which you claim do not become less valid, were never facts, but big corporations spreading misinformation and capitalizing on some missteps made by a fraction of scientists, who felt compelled to polish the numbers of some studies, because of their frustration in being up against big corporate money.

You have two choices: follow the scientific community, and what they're saying, or big money, which is obviously motivated by the concept of making money.

Take your blinders off, and try and be critical of your idea about global warming, because only about 10 percent in the scientific community actually interpret the data somewhat in line with how you do. Notably, a large percentage of scientists who are petroleum geologists. Hmm, imagine that.

It's amazing how much misinformation can be spread by corporations who have a huge amount of money at stake. However, it doesn't take a brilliant mind to realize that.

I think some people just have a difficult time weeding out the garbage from legitimate material. It helps if you take an active interest in the subject, rather than following your nose in response to seeking out questionable material that dovetails with your political agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those who fell for the argument that melting ice won't cause sea levels to rise.

I took the liberty of putting your logical fallacies in bold so others can learn from your assumptions. So far you have asked for evidence, the when provided with a reputable source, denied it existed, made sweeping generalizations & assumptions about me personally, as well as the scientific community, and attacked me personally rather than the evidence produced. It doesn't take a brilliant mind to see you are presenting emotional motivation as evidence rather than facts.

I took the liberty of putting your logical fallacies in bold so others can learn from your assumptions. So far you have asked for evidence, the when provided with a reputable source, denied it existed, made sweeping generalizations & assumptions about me personally, as well as the scientific community, and attacked me personally rather than the evidence produced. It doesn't take a brilliant mind to see you are presenting emotional motivation as evidence rather than facts.

Oh, okay.

Let's take things one point at a time, then. What is your take on the theory of melting ice and rising sea levels?

Sorry, I am not going to waste time discussing endless peripheral issues which could be symptoms of any number of causes. Lets get right to the dependent factor of all of these side topics. Does human production of carbon-dioxide significantly raise global temperature? All of your assumptions rest on this one answer. You say yes, I say no. So far I have seen others here provide you with references - but I haven't yet once seen you provide documentation. It is easy to sit on the side and demand others produce evidence, then deconstruct it endlessly. Why don't you declare some of this evidence you claim you have?

Sorry, I am not going to waste time discussing endless peripheral issues which could be symptoms of any number of causes. Lets get right to the dependent factor of all of these side topics. Does human production of carbon-dioxide significantly raise global temperature? All of your assumptions rest on this one answer. You say yes, I say no. So far I have seen others here provide you with references - but I haven't yet once seen you provide documentation. It is easy to sit on the side and demand others produce evidence, then deconstruct it endlessly. Why don't you declare some of this evidence you claim you have?

Based on your remark above, can we assume for starters that you acknowledge global warming, but are hesitant to attribute it to humanity?

Yes, the globe is heating, but will it have significant impact to our lives? That I find debatable at best. There is far more evidence that this recent temperature increase is a result of solar cycles than human activity. Speaking of evidence, I am still waiting on some documentation, but I fully expect you to provide none and proceed with endlessly deconstructing statements as you have done so far. You are claiming there needs to be a change after all, therefore the burden of proof is on YOU regardless of how much consensus you claim there is.

i do not see how that is related to your previous statement. the magnitude of energy capture is less than models predict. that does not support your assertion that solar cycles are a cause of anything and the fact remains that solar irradiance has fallen while meteorological measurements show temperatures have risen.

as for your link, how about we read what the actual scientist has to say rather than heartland?

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

in other words - not warming as fast as models predict, but still warming at an unprecedented rate.

i do not see how that is related to your previous statement. the magnitude of energy capture is less than models predict. that does not support your assertion that solar cycles are a cause of anything and the fact remains that solar irradiance has fallen while meteorological measurements show temperatures have risen.

as for your link, how about we read what the actual scientist has to say rather than heartland?

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

in other words - not warming as fast as models predict, but still warming at an unprecedented rate.

I believe what you are trying to say is "Golly gee! Temperatures have been rising pretty fast in the past twenty years or so, compared to the past hundred years in which we have been capable of measuring global temperatures".

Yes, there are ice core measurements, etc but those generally point to mixed conclusions that are somewhat inconvenient for proponents of anthropogenic global warming (for example, it was far warmer during the Holocene Maximum in most of the world, and even the Medieval Warm Period featured warmer climate in most of Europe). "But wait!" you say, "Temperature increases of the time were not constant throughout the world so they don't count!", to which I reply "True, but such increases don't apply now, either. For example, I recall it being noted a while back that large portions of the USA aren't warming at all, and are, in fact, beginning to cool down significantly. This indicates that if humans are affecting the climate at all with emissions, the effects are marginal at best."

True, it might not be solar emissions causing an increase in temperature (though again, these increases are definitely not worldwide at this point, so it isn't even honest to claim that "the earth is warming" at all), but then we aren't exactly far ahead in terms of our ability to understand the climate in a massive way. Personally, I would imagine that what warming there is is being caused by water vapor and ocean currents, which would certainly make some sense. But then, we don't know enough to be able to make strong, accurate predictions either way. There was once a time where the most groundbreaking, revolutionary and accurate belief was that the earth was actually round (true) and that the sun rotated around it (false). This wasn't because the earth was really flat (which was the alternative of the time), but because ancient astronomers were effectively incapable of figuring it out with the instruments at hand. Likewise, our climate models are crude and far off target with predictions. It is a bit silly to claim that we have suddenly understood the mysteries of the climate in their entirety when we obviously haven't.

This is still a pointless argument, though. Assuming there is no global warming, we have nothing to worry about. Assuming there is (and assuming that nothing natural counterbalances the excess of CO2, like how some consider that plants may thrive from the CO2 and absorb more, producing more oxygen and growing faster), we have a very long time before most of the negative effects become prominent (don't give me the Al Gore "flooding Florida" garbage, the most alarmist of AGW supporting scientists predict far milder effects in the worse case scenario over a far longer period of time) by which time we will probably have a more efficient energy source due to a decrease in supply and increase in demand of fuel. However, assuming you are right (and libertarianism is flexible enough to handle the situation even in the worst case scenario), here is a list of things things a libertarian society would do (most of which even apply to lukewarm, beltway libertarians, though I will mention if they don't):

-No more energy subsidies. No truly libertarian society would subsidize oil companies (though a somewhat libertarian society might, but we are talking about one willing to at least go to minarchy along the lines of a Ron-Paul-Sets-All-The-Rules world if not farther), and thus oil would lose a lot of its competitiveness in the market. This would result in far less incentive to use oil, resulting in other energy sources becoming commercially viable without subsidies. Mind, alternative energy would lose subsidies too, but frankly if it can't stand without subsidies it is definitely a poor alternative (the prime example of this is the hybrid car, which requires more energy to make its engine than it saves through efficiency). Ultimately, improvements in technology would result in a superior, probably cleaner form of energy.

-Without government controlled energy grids, a lot of burning electricity plants would be far too inefficient to make a profit (especially without subsidies), while some alternative energy sources might become far more popular due to increased utility (for example, wind turbines and solar panels would be far more prevalent, though their inefficiencies would have to be dealt with to be made viable outside of a handful of areas).

-The road system would probably stop receiving subsidies. Roads would still be present, but they would likely be owned by either landowners (the roads would be auctioned off to those homesteading the land nearby or abandoned altogether depending on the circumstances) or by road companies. The road owners wouldn't want to have to use their own money to pay for "frequent drivers", and thus would charge a fee for driving on them. Competition would keep costs below what they are now (paid in taxes), but those who drove everywhere for no good reason would begin to feel the cost hurting their pocketbook. Meanwhile, those who only drove when necessary would note that the loss of many taxes otherwise used to pay for infrastructure (varies depending on the country, but in my own it is the gas tax) would result in them actually benefiting from their decision, which coincidentally is the "environmentally friendly" one as well. Alternative modes of transportation would become far more viable without subsidized roads, too.

-A minor one, but this would still probably have an effect. The military, no longer needing to go on foreign adventures, would be greatly downsized (if not privatized altogether). They would cease to consume as many resources as when they are maintaining over a hundred bases across the world and fighting many wars, and thus would greatly decrease their emissions.

1) How would a Libertarian society handle the case where something people benefited from individually in sum caused massive harm to everyone -- a case where each person individual benefits from "defecting" but where everyone would benefit if they could all "cooperate".

2) Is global warming a problem of this type?

I suggest you try to either work on one issue or the other but not both at the same time. When talking about how a Libertarian society would handle warming, assuming that man-made releases of CO2 have a significant risk of causing a global cataclysm. When talking about the actual scientific issues with AGW, forget about politics.

The one point I keep trying to make is this -- regardless of how well or badly a Libertarian society would address global warming (or similar problems like pollution), democracies have done at best a mediocre job and, more typically, a terrible job. The only thing that seems to address these problems effectively is prosperity and technology.

1) How would a Libertarian society handle the case where something people benefited from individually in sum caused massive harm to everyone -- a case where each person individual benefits from "defecting" but where everyone would benefit if they could all "cooperate".

2) Is global warming a problem of this type?

I suggest you try to either work on one issue or the other but not both at the same time. When talking about how a Libertarian society would handle warming, assuming that man-made releases of CO2 have a significant risk of causing a global cataclysm. When talking about the actual scientific issues with AGW, forget about politics.

The one point I keep trying to make is this -- regardless of how well or badly a Libertarian society would address global warming (or similar problems like pollution), democracies have done at best a mediocre job and, more typically, a terrible job. The only thing that seems to address these problems effectively is prosperity and technology.

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.

The solution would be for the libertarian feudal lords to build underground bunkers where they can live while the rest of the population dies, and then die themselves, alone.

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.

The solution would be for the libertarian feudal lords to build underground bunkers where they can live while the rest of the population dies, and then die themselves, alone.

Because we all know that global warming, if real, would resemble a nuclear war ::)

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.

The solution would be for the libertarian feudal lords to build underground bunkers where they can live while the rest of the population dies, and then die themselves, alone.

Because we all know that global warming, if real, would resemble a nuclear war ::)

Obviously you people don't have a clue what a Liberty Seeker(Libertarian) is. You sound like a bunch of Government Trolls, since it's funny you never see the Trolls out posting about how would a Socialist, or Facist, or Communist Society address the Global Warming Hoax. It's always about a Libertarian stance. What a joke you people are, and so bloody transparent it's laughable.

A Libertarian is a responsible person. To himself and those around him. Why? Because he believes in his own rights and the rights of others.

If Global Warming existed and wasn't a con job hoisted upon the World and propped up by Trolls around the Globe both off and online a Libertarian Society would accept responsibility on a national scale to ensure the safe conduct of its Inustrial Base.

Now, if you're done trolling on Libertarians and towing the Globalist line so Al Gore can make his billions on Carbon Credits while the rest of us pay world taxes to support the Global Government I'd like to get back to my online poker game...

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.

The solution would be for the libertarian feudal lords to build underground bunkers where they can live while the rest of the population dies, and then die themselves, alone.

Because we all know that global warming, if real, would resemble a nuclear war ::)

Obviously you people don't have a clue what a Liberty Seeker(Libertarian) is. You sound like a bunch of Government Trolls, since it's funny you never see the Trolls out posting about how would a Socialist, or Facist, or Communist Society address the Global Warming Hoax. It's always about a Libertarian stance. What a joke you people are, and so bloody transparent it's laughable.

A Libertarian is a responsible person. To himself and those around him. Why? Because he believes in his own rights and the rights of others.

If Global Warming existed and wasn't a con job hoisted upon the World and propped up by Trolls around the Globe both off and online a Libertarian Society would accept responsibility on a national scale to ensure the safe conduct of its Inustrial Base.

Now, if you're done trolling on Libertarians and towing the Globalist line so Al Gore can make his billions on Carbon Credits while the rest of us pay world taxes to support the Global Government I'd like to get back to my online poker game...

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.

This type of confusion is the reason you have to separate the issue in two. There are two possible cases:

1) Global warming is not a real problem. In this case, as you say, nobody would give a shit about it because it's not going to hurt them. But there's no reason they should care.

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the problem is real but that still there's no incentive for anyone to find ways to reduce other people's impact on it.

1) Global warming is not a real problem. In this case, as you say, nobody would give a shit about it because it's not going to hurt them. But there's no reason they should care.

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the problem is real but that still there's no incentive for anyone to find ways to reduce other people's impact on it.

1) Global warming is not a real problem. In this case, some would believe it is a real problem and others would not. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it.

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, some would believe it is a real problem and others would not. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it.

3) Global warming is not a real problem, with a solid consensus that it is not a real problem. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it, plus even less incentive to decrease pollutants, which would inevitably have unsatisfying results.

4) Global warming is a real problem, with a solid consensus that it is a real problem. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it, with the exception that some fraction of the population voluntarily tries to decrease pollutants, while others take advantage of the decrease in harvested resources to harvest those resources themselves at a lower cost, thus accelerating global warming anyway.

I'm more than willing to continue our discussion, but I'm trying to get the details of your position first. I asked you a question. Please answer it and we can continue. The question is about your position on sea levels rising. Basically, will global warming cause sea levels to rise?

The only ones left are Agenda Pushers and those who don't have a clue what Libertarian means or that Global Warming is a scam. I pity both because with your heads buried so deep in the sand, you'll already be on your knees when they finally come for you.

The only ones left are Agenda Pushers and those who don't have a clue what Libertarian means or that Global Warming is a scam. I pity both because with your heads buried so deep in the sand, you'll already be on your knees when they finally come for you.

I suggest you write some emails to all the scientists out in the field and in the labs doing research on Global Warming. Otherwise, how are they to know that their work is pointless?

Attention everyone: TheGer is going to set all the scientists straight! He has information gleaned from right leaning commentary written by bloggers and such that clearly is based on solid information that the scientists do not have access to.

Note to TheGer: get to it, man! Until the scientists hear from you, they won't know to stop doing their research!

4) Global warming is a real problem, with a solid consensus that it is a real problem. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it, with the exception that some fraction of the population voluntarily tries to decrease pollutants, while others take advantage of the decrease in harvested resources to harvest those resources themselves at a lower cost, thus accelerating global warming anyway.

You fail so fucking hard.

You still don't understand it, do you? You can't pick my fruit. If someone decides that a particular resource is important enough to protect, then their ownership of it will protect it. If there is a solid consensus that global warming (BTW, get with the program, the shills are calling it climate change now) is in fact a problem, then most people would protect what they own, and McEvil Co. couldn't get their hands on it. So, please, think before you post, it will prevent that nasty taste of toe-jam you're experiencing right now.

Also, could you please stop replying to the same post twice? That's just retarded. If you want to add something edit your first fucking post.

I live next to you and drill 2,000 feet down and start pulling up oil. What is the extent of that oil reserve relative to my land?

I pull water from an aquifer accessed from my land, which is next to yours.

I go out onto the deep blue sea and fish.

A river runs through my backyard and yours, and I fish that river.

The short term profit derived from cutting down the rain forest on my property which is next to yours allows me to live a great life, since I have nobody to pass on my inheritance to. However, the act of cutting down that rain forest has created edge effects at our common property line, which has a deleterious effect on the ecosystem of your property.

I live next to you and drill 2,000 feet down and start pulling up oil. What is the extent of that oil reserve relative to my land?

What functional purpose does oil in the ground provide? Is it like the earth's hydraulic fluid? If I really wanted to preserve that resource, I'd put up wells on my land, and suck the reserve dry before you could, then store the oil.

I pull water from an aquifer accessed from my land, which is next to yours.

So, what are you planning on doing with that water? Going to be irrigating crops? Back into the aquifer. Drinking it? Eventually, back into the aquifer. Washing your house? Back into the aquifer. Honestly, the only thing you could be doing which will actually deplete the aquifer is pump/truck it elsewhere, and it's usually more efficient to get water where you are. So, a very rare case.

The short term profit derived from cutting down the rain forest on my property which is next to yours allows me to live a great life, since I have nobody to pass on my inheritance to. However, the act of cutting down that rain forest has created edge effects at our common property line, which has a deleterious effect on the ecosystem of your property.

Ah! A reasonably plausible scenario! At last! The solution for this, and indeed any negative effects from the other scenarios, is Arbitration or Mediation. You have caused me damage. I can (and will) sue for damages. The cost of damages should out-weigh the benefit of harvesting irresponsibly (versus responsibly), causing you a net loss from your dickish behavior.

What functional purpose does oil in the ground provide? Is it like the earth's hydraulic fluid? If I really wanted to preserve that resource, I'd put up wells on my land, and suck the reserve dry before you could, then store the oil.

The functional purpose is its ability to create money. Twenty years from now, when you need money, the oil won't be there, because I picked your fruit. Your argument falls flat on its face. Remember, you said I can't pick your fruit, and I gave you an example.

Quote

So, what are you planning on doing with that water? Going to be irrigating crops? Back into the aquifer. Drinking it? Eventually, back into the aquifer. Washing your house? Back into the aquifer. Honestly, the only thing you could be doing which will actually deplete the aquifer is pump/truck it elsewhere, and it's usually more efficient to get water where you are. So, a very rare case.

My land is large, but the aquifer resides only near the border of our two properties. I may be more than willing to deplete it to satisfy my needs as long as it works until I die. Again, I'm picking your fruit.

Unless you're putting a net across the river, your fishing would have a hard time affecting me.

It certainly can. I'm downstream and fishing salmon.

Quote

Ah! A reasonably plausible scenario! At last! The solution for this, and indeed any negative effects from the other scenarios, is Arbitration or Mediation. You have caused me damage. I can (and will) sue for damages. The cost of damages should out-weigh the benefit of harvesting irresponsibly (versus responsibly), causing you a net loss from your dickish behavior.

Or you might be of the same mind as me and cut down your forest for the same reasons I did. And the guy next to us, and so forth, until there is less and less rain forest, at which point, it becomes clear we all picked the fruit of our children. It's all fruit picking, and your ideas don't really address it.

The functional purpose is its ability to create money. Twenty years from now, when you need money, the oil won't be there, because I picked your fruit. Your argument falls flat on its face. Remember, you said I can't pick your fruit, and I gave you an example.

OR: I use the money I make from pumping out the oil in competition with you to make MORE money, and 20 years from now, my kids are sitting on a fat inheritance.

My land is large, but the aquifer resides only near the border of our two properties. I may be more than willing to deplete it to satisfy my needs as long as it works until I die. Again, I'm picking your fruit.

Again, Unless you put a net across the stream, you are going to have a hard time affecting the rest of the river. One man with a pole don't make me no nevermind. And again, you do me harm, you pay damages.

Or you might be of the same mind as me and cut down your forest for the same reasons I did. And the guy next to us, and so forth, until there is less and less rain forest, at which point, it becomes clear we all picked the fruit of our children. It's all fruit picking, and your ideas don't really address it.

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

Myrkul, you just can't argue with people who don't value Liberty. They are to dumb to know any better, or collecting a paycheck to sell out their own race. Collaborators if you will. Collaborators get what's coming to them in the end. When/if the Overlords ever come to complete power the people who got them there are the first ones they get rid of. This has been proven throughout History.

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

But those who don't give a shit would really make it worse for everyone, regardless of the fact that there are those who do give a shit.

Sure, in a Democracy that's exactly what happens. Those who don't give a shit simply get the government to set pollution limits that allow them to pollute as much as they want and pre-empt any nuisance lawsuits. But that tool wouldn't be available to them in a Libertarian society.

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically. You really and truly believe that it's possible for your single acre of land to look like this:

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically. You really and truly believe that it's possible for your single acre of land to look like this:

While everything around you for hundreds of miles looks like this:

That makes you delusional.

There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically. You really and truly believe that that's what I think.

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

OR: I use the money I make from pumping out the oil in competition with you to make MORE money, and 20 years from now, my kids are sitting on a fat inheritance.

So now we're in a race even though you weren't interested in being in a race prior to me drilling my well? I've now forced you to do something you weren't interested in before.

Quote

You damage me, you pay damages. Be a dick, pay the price.

According to your take on it with regard to oil, it's all about being in a race. But now it's all about you being aware of the resource while I'm sucking water out of the aquifer. What if you don't know what I'm doing - let's say I don't allow you on my property and you're not an expert with regard to aquifers? You may not know the causes of why your land has lost its natural resource until after I've died. Clearly, you wouldn't be in the right to sue who purchased my land just before I died.

Quote

Nope, Nobody's fish, until you claim them.

Well, golly, it's all about making claims then. Then I guess I can claim all that water in the aquifer, right? Why not? I claim it's just like the oceans. I seriously doubt you have considered, until this moment, how deep land ownership goes. Do you own all the way to the center of the Earth, in the shape of an inverted pyramid for every square parcel you own?

Quote

Again, Unless you put a net across the stream, you are going to have a hard time affecting the rest of the river. One man with a pole don't make me no nevermind. And again, you do me harm, you pay damages.

I am going to put a net across the river. My lawyers are better than yours, and you're the only guy upstream, so good luck.

Quote

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

You are not entitled to compensation by me under your ideology unless you have the ability to actually get me to pay you. Good luck.

When word gets out that you don't go to Arbitration, you are the very definition of an outlaw: outside of society.

I will go to arbitration, and I'll bring my lawyers, and I have a huge budget for them, because I've been making a lot of money selling my oil.

Of course, it's possible that I instead chose a farmer's life, cut down the rain forest all around your property, and failed to make any real money engaging in agriculture, and died bankrupt. Good luck getting any money out of me in that scenario as well.

When word gets out that you don't go to Arbitration, you are the very definition of an outlaw: outside of society.

I will go to arbitration, and I'll bring my lawyers, and I have a huge budget for them, because I've been making a lot of money selling my oil.

Of course, it's possible that I instead chose a farmer's life, cut down the rain forest all around your property, and failed to make any real money engaging in agriculture, and died bankrupt. Good luck getting any money out of me in that scenario as well.

True on the second point, but then I get your land. In a few years, the rainforest will start to reclaim it.

In the first scenario, perhaps you had better look up what arbitration is. It's not like a State court.

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

You can attempt to get them to compensate you all you want, but the damage is done and it's irreversable. All the lawsuit money in the world is no good if your home is permenantly ruined and you're dying of some horrible disease because of all the pollution you live in.

I take it we're done here because your defense is falling apart? Is that how arbitration would work for you as well? When you're not in agreement with how the arbitration process is going, you would just proclaim "We're done here" and walk out, thinking you'd get the compensation you seek?

"Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?"

Simple enough, they would address it by exposing the scam that it is. Below is a link to one of the better expositions on this scam I have ever seen. I expect the party line Global Warming Illusionists will not bother to watch it, but to those still on the fence reading this I recommend it. It lays out in plain 2+2=4 talk what bullshit it is, and makes the Party Liners in this thread look like the Boobs they are.

"Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?"

Simple enough, they would address it by exposing the scam that it is.

If you want to believe it's a scam, then by all means, seek out those who are on your side. I suppose you have evidence the Moon landings were faked as well?

You sound like a conspiracy theorist, man. Seriously, do yourself a favor. For one week - just one week - stop doing Google searches that include the word 'scam' next to 'Global Warming', and instead, just read some science journals. You can begin with Nature and Science. But if you don't want to get bogged down in the academic material, then read Scientific American.

"Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?"

Simple enough, they would address it by exposing the scam that it is.

If you want to believe it's a scam, then by all means, seek out those who are on your side. I suppose you have evidence the Moon landings were faked as well?

You sound like a conspiracy theorist, man. Seriously, do yourself a favor. For one week - just one week - stop doing Google searches that include the word 'scam' next to 'Global Warming', and instead, just read some science journals. You can begin with Nature and Science. But if you don't want to get bogged down in the academic material, then read Scientific American.

If you want to believe it's the Gospel, then by all means, seek out those who are on your side. I suppose you have evidence that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real as well?

You sound like a kool-aid drinker, man. Seriously, do yourself a favor. For one week - just one week - stop swallowing everything you are told by Al Gore and instead look at evidence that does not come from people who are on the government payroll.

You sound like a kool-aid drinker, man. Seriously, do yourself a favor. For one week - just one week - stop swallowing everything you are told by Al Gore and instead look at evidence that does not come from people who are on the government payroll.

I've probably spent less than three minutes in my life hearing what Al Gore says. I personally just spend a lot of time studying science, unlike you. I challenge you to post links to the crap you read regularly. I'm sure we'll have a good laugh tracking down the backers of said material.

The onus is on you to provide credible evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change from sources without a conflict of interest.

Most of the scientific community accepts anthropogenic climate change. You on the other hand can do nothing but pull up commentary that obviously has a conflict of interest if you do a simple search on the author or publisher. I believe there was a recent link provided by your partner in denial a few posts back which was shown to be published by a Heartland author in Forbes, which didn't even require much sleuthing to uncover its bias.

You know what is really hilarious? Every single link provided by you deniers is just commentary on some right wing blog with an interpretative spin. It's never actually from the original scientific research. And that's the best you can do. Most of the time, it's a failed attempt to discredit me or someone else by trying to associate me with something you find distasteful, which is an even weaker rebuttal.

Quote

IPCC = Conflict of interest, just like the studies done by oil companies.

Your above statement implies three interesting points:

1. The studies done by the oil companies, and by extension, everyone who buys into their influence, are biased and lack credibility. With regard to this point, all I have to say is thank you for making my point.

2. The assumption that the material I cite is the product of the IPCC. You are wrong on this point - see the third point below. As I stated earlier, I read the scientific journals. Do you? I suspect not. Instead, you read blogs and commentary influenced by big oil. Furthermore, I suspect you seek out material which supports your belief, and you naturally arrive at said biased blogs and commentary, because in your searches, you're unlikely to arrive upon very many real science articles. I can state with a high degree of confidence that this assertion summarizes your methods.

3. The assumption that the IPCC is the body actually doing the research and publishing the findings of that research. With regard to this point, I suggest that you stop your witch hunt and simply read science publications.

On a different note: I have requested more than once that someone provide an explanation of their belief about sea level change, and what might cause it or not cause it. I suspect that the sources the deniers go to don't fully explain it, or if by their searches, they did in fact stumble upon some valid science, they'd find the answer does not agree with their ideology.

Instead, you read blogs and commentary influenced by big oil. Furthermore, I suspect you seek out material which supports your belief, and you naturally arrive at said biased blogs and commentary, because in your searches, you're unlikely to arrive upon very many real science articles. I can state with a high degree of confidence that this assertion summarizes your methods.

Clearly I can never win this debate because I am arguing with a mind reader. If you care to know what my opinion is on climate change is, it's that I don't know. Because I am yet to be presented with conclusive evidence that doesn't come from either a govt mouth piece media outlet or from "scientists" on the government payroll. This is the same reason why I reject "evidence" from "scientists" & "studies" sponsored by oil companies. Both these bodies have a conflict of interest so I reject studies tied to both. It seems you only reject that of the oil companies.

I suggest that you stop your witch hunt and simply read science publications.

I suggest you quote specific evidence or admit that it does not exist. If it does then prove me wrong. I welcome it. saying "read science publications" is useless. There are many studies out there. Which one should I look at? Which page? Not all are credible.

I wouldn't bother reading a study done by an oil company. The chance of bias is too high. Like I've repeatedly said, I read science publications, and the overall sense I get from such reading is that science is overwhelmingly on the side of anthropogenic climate change.

I suggest that you stop your witch hunt and simply read science publications.

I suggest you quote specific evidence or admit that it does not exist. If it does then prove me wrong. I welcome it. saying "read science publications" is useless. There are many studies out there. Which one should I look at? Which page? Not all are credible.

Nowhere in your above statements did you refute my guess that you don't regularly read science publications. If I provided you with some particular page, document, etc., you would simply claim that I cherry picked that document.

The only thing I can ask you to do is to start regularly reading science publications. Examples include Nature, Science, and on a more layman's level, Scientific American. Seed Magazine is good too, but I suspect that you wouldn't agree with a lot of what they say, and as a result, you'd claim it's all a bunch of hogwash. But take Nature and Science: it's just science. Yes, scientists do have bias, but they love and respect the scientific process. They're interested in discovering things, and finding the truth through the beautiful process of science. If you love science, then you'll start reading that material on a regular basis. And the takeaway from all that is, you'll slowly realize that what the scientists are overwhelmingly saying is that climate change is happening and it's being caused in large part by humanity.

Really important statement, please read: Honestly, I used to have little or no interest in climate change, and had no opinion on it one way or another. I have read continuously science publications because of my interest in quantum physics, space exploration and genetics. But over the past several years, in that process of reading science publications, I kept encountering articles and studies on climate change. I started reading them. And over and over again, I became more familiar with the methods the scientists were employing to collect data, correlate data, and analyze it. The more I learned, the more interesting it became, and now I look forward to reading science on the subject. I went from somebody who had no agenda or interest with regard to climate change to someone who genuinely enjoys reading about the scientific research done in the field. And once you immerse yourself into the subject matter at a scientific level, you won't be convinced by commentary, blogs or anything like that.

That is why when someone creates a link that is a journalist's commentary on the subject, or a blog by a non scientist, especially cherry picked by someone who does not want to believe in climate change, it's going to have close to zero effect on me.

Likewise, if I post a link, you're going to just claim I cherry picked it. It's pointless.

My request is this: start reading lots of science on the subject of climate change, written by the scientists themselves, and over time, perhaps a year, you can come to whatever conclusion you want to.

But the absolutely wrong way to go about it is to seek out material that supports your point of view, especially material that is not written by the scientists engaging in the research. Just read the science journals, without looking for articles that refute or support your view - just read the magazines and publications for other reasons, and over time, I'm fairly confident your viewpoint will change. I personally believe your viewpoint will change as a result of doing that. I don't think your viewpoint will change as a result of links I specifically point you to.

Like I've repeatedly said, I read science publications, and the overall sense I get from such reading is that science is overwhelmingly on the side of anthropogenic climate change.

So you don't have specific evidence? M'kay.

Quote

If I provided you with some particular page, document, etc., you would simply claim that I cherry picked that document.

I give up. My logic is no match for your mind reading skills.

The rest... tl;dr. It's useless when you ignore repeated calls for evidence

I think my post above qualified as being more thoughtful and earnest. I also think it was filled with some reasonable advice. Interpret it as you wish. As for evidence, I indicated how you could go about discovering evidence on your own.

Lol you didn't watch any of them who are you kidding? Any Global Warming fool would be picked apart arguing against that information. You keep your New Age Religeon buddy, we'll keep the facts and common sense.

"I did watch some of them. I'm trying to understand why you think anyone would be impressed by those links."

That's not possible unless you have a centralized, relatively single-minded society. You don't. You can't be an outcast from a land full of people doing whatever they want and making their own rules.

What people really want to do, when permitted to make up their own rules, is cooperate and specialize. They will make up the rules that makes that as efficient as they possibly can because the vast majority of individuals expect to personally thrive in that type of environment. You don't need centralization or single-mindedness to ostracize people who treat their fellow men unjustly. Each person finds it in their individual self-interest to ostracize such people.

The onus is on you to provide credible evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change from sources without a conflict of interest.

Why the **** would anyone need to do that?

Almost NOTHING on this planet happens without a conflict of interest, since people need to eat and therefore need someone to pay for what they do.

Researchers working in universities in general DON'T make very good money. And that's where 99 % of climate research is made. If it's a scam it is not going very well, judging from the fact that the ones I know take the bus to work because they can't afford a car.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious when deniers pull out Al Gore and "government scientists" when the concept goes back almost 50 years (though the term global warming wasn't coined until the mid-70s), and the science it's based on is approaching 200 years. That alone says EVERYTHING about the amount of understanding the denier camp has.

The onus is on you to provide credible evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change from sources without a conflict of interest.

Why the **** would anyone need to do that?

Almost NOTHING on this planet happens without a conflict of interest, since people need to eat and therefore need someone to pay for what they do.

Researchers working in universities in general DON'T make very good money. And that's where 99 % of climate research is made. If it's a scam it is not going very well, judging from the fact that the ones I know take the bus to work because they can't afford a car.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious when deniers pull out Al Gore and "government scientists" when the concept goes back almost 50 years (though the term global warming wasn't coined until the mid-70s), and the science it's based on is approaching 200 years. That alone says EVERYTHING about the amount of understanding the denier camp has.

Also finding it hilarious that the warmistas cant seem to provide any sources even after repeated requests from several posters, yet have no problem playing grand inquisitor demanding sources then ignoring them, and playing Miss Cleo divining poster's belief systems.

Geez, there's a lot of individuals in this thread who are heavily bought into the drivel spewed forth from the brownlash community. To sum up their conclusions: "Yes, my source of information is from Environment & Climate News, clearly the most trusted source in science reporting, even though it's edited by a guy who has no degree in science, and does not ever practice science, but instead is an advocate of property rights."

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.

There is a huge incentive for those who have invested massive emotional capital in libertarianism - to subvert the science as widespread acceptance of the science tends to destroy libertarianism - why? because the libertarians have nailed their ideas to the mast of denialism.

Ecological Services are worth a huge component of the total global economy - yet to value ecological services, you require intervention in the market. libertarian political economy represents economy killing ideas.

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.

The problem with this is that a more libertarian society would have the denial crowd spreading bigger lies: there's nothing to prevent a polluting industry from paying people for fabrications. There is an incentive to lie because even in an environment without class action lawsuits, industries would still need to maintain a public image.

Besides, simple facts of human nature like negative externalities and the tragedy of the commons mean that while this evil "coercion" would not exist, nor would any other force to prevent global catastrophe.

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.

The problem with this is that a more libertarian society would have the denial crowd spreading bigger lies: there's nothing to prevent a polluting industry from paying people for fabrications.

This already happens on a regular basis, by the libertarian 'think tanks'. See this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40283.0

There's a huge incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming means a coercive government will place onerous restrictions on people. There is no incentive to distort the science when universal acceptance of global warming does not mean widespread economy-killing coercion.

So, on the "head in the sand" front, a Libertarian society would have huge advantages over ones like ours.

The problem with this is that a more libertarian society would have the denial crowd spreading bigger lies: there's nothing to prevent a polluting industry from paying people for fabrications. There is an incentive to lie because even in an environment without class action lawsuits, industries would still need to maintain a public image.

Besides, simple facts of human nature like negative externalities and the tragedy of the commons mean that while this evil "coercion" would not exist, nor would any other force to prevent global catastrophe.

I don't follow the argument. Yes, I agree that some of the motivations would exist even in a Libertarian society. But certainly some of the biggest motivations (the fear of a massive, coercive, economy-killing government response) would not. So I don't see why you think it would be "bigger lies".

There is a huge incentive for those who have invested massive emotional capital in libertarianism - to subvert the science as widespread acceptance of the science tends to destroy libertarianism - why? because the libertarians have nailed their ideas to the mast of denialism.

But that's because they see denialism as a way to prevent massive increases in government power. If there was no threat of a coercive government response to global warming, why would Libertarians particularly care one way or the other?

There is a huge incentive for those who have invested massive emotional capital in libertarianism - to subvert the science as widespread acceptance of the science tends to destroy libertarianism - why? because the libertarians have nailed their ideas to the mast of denialism.

But that's because they see denialism as a way to prevent massive increases in government power. If there was no threat of a coercive government response to global warming, why would Libertarians particularly care one way or the other?

Perhaps you should rethink your insistent use of the term 'coercive government'. There are other possibilities, such as 'collective action', or 'majority defined regulations'. Whatever the case, consistent and widespread proactively organized action is necessary to address environmental issues.

There is a huge incentive for those who have invested massive emotional capital in libertarianism - to subvert the science as widespread acceptance of the science tends to destroy libertarianism - why? because the libertarians have nailed their ideas to the mast of denialism.

But that's because they see denialism as a way to prevent massive increases in government power. If there was no threat of a coercive government response to global warming, why would Libertarians particularly care one way or the other?

Perhaps you should rethink your insistent use of the term 'coercive government'. There are other possibilities, such as 'collective action', or 'majority defined regulations'. Whatever the case, consistent and widespread proactively organized action is necessary to address environmental issues.

These are all coercive by definition. Your philosophy is a philosophy of might makes right and mob rule.

These are all coercive by definition. Your philosophy is a philosophy of might makes right and mob rule.

So what? Call it what you want. What needs to be done needs to be done.

In theory a free market should be able to acknowledge anthropogenic global warming and self-regulate. It's only high transaction costs preventing that from happening already. Imagine a whole bunch of Anarchist groups mutually agreeing to the Kyoto protocol, or something similar.

Yeah something should be done, but who and how are very important details. Any solution that doesn't work with both states and anarchist communities is not a realistic one.

These are all coercive by definition. Your philosophy is a philosophy of might makes right and mob rule.

So what? Call it what you want. What needs to be done needs to be done.

In theory a free market should be able to acknowledge anthropogenic global warming and self-regulate. It's only high transaction costs preventing that from happening already. Imagine a whole bunch of Anarchist groups mutually agreeing to the Kyoto protocol, or something similar.

Well, gee, imagine them not agreeing. For example, those libertarian think tank members over at Heartland Institute. I use the term 'think tank' lightly here - that's what they call themselves.

Global Warming is Quack Science. Yes, its happening, no, we are not responsible. We contribute, but we have pretty much zero to do with it as a species on this planet. Every planet is warming now, and it's not our C02 doing it.

These are all coercive by definition. Your philosophy is a philosophy of might makes right and mob rule.

So what? Call it what you want. What needs to be done needs to be done.

In theory a free market should be able to acknowledge anthropogenic global warming and self-regulate. It's only high transaction costs preventing that from happening already. Imagine a whole bunch of Anarchist groups mutually agreeing to the Kyoto protocol, or something similar.

Well, gee, imagine them not agreeing. For example, those libertarian think tank members over at Heartland Institute. I use the term 'think tank' lightly here - that's what they call themselves.

I said in theory. Until I see an actual working free market solution I'm certainly not objecting to pollution taxes.

Global Warming is Quack Science. Yes, its happening, no, we are not responsible. We contribute, but we have pretty much zero to do with it as a species on this planet. Every planet is warming now, and it's not our C02 doing it.

Thank you for setting me straight. I'll stop reading Nature (http://www.nature.com/) and Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/) and Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/). What sources do you recommend for further information? Where are you getting your information?

So, to clarify, in your system if society decided that we needed to kill all Mexicans that would be ok?

Seriously, are you twelve? Sorry for the insult, but your question kind of deserves it - see below.

To begin with, it's not my system. It's called the state of the World today, and the participating governments, which do in fact apply regulation, or in your words, coercion. If I could, I would like to be able to influence policy to get governments to enact regulation to help save the environment.

As I said, I don't have a system. I'm a participant in the real world.

So, to clarify, in your system if society decided that we needed to kill all Mexicans that would be ok?

Seriously, are you twelve? Sorry for the insult, but your question kind of deserves it - see below.

To begin with, it's not my system. It's called the state of the World today, and the participating governments, which do in fact apply regulation, or in your words, coercion. If I could, I would like to be able to influence policy to get governments to enact regulation to help save the environment.

As I said, I don't have a system. I'm a participant in the real world.

You just said you were ok with a system of mob rule: "collective action" and "majority defined regulation". My question was an extreme example, but you have to look at the extremes to make sense of the philosophy. Here's a milder one: If the majority of society decided that they needed to confiscate all motor vehicles in the country to reduce carbon emissions, would that be ok?

If you aren't here to argue philosophy and philosophical positions you are in the wrong forum, or at least the wrong thread. The topic is "how would a libertarian society address global warming?". I'm trying to argue philosophy: libertarian vs. the current system. You insult my philosophical question, and tell me that "If I could, I would like to be able to influence policy to get governments to enact regulation to help save the environment." Fine. But you're in the wrong thread.

You just said you were ok with a system of mob rule: "collective action" and "majority defined regulation". My question was an extreme example, but you have to look at the extremes to make sense of the philosophy. Here's a milder one: If the majority of society decided that they needed to confiscate all motor vehicles in the country to reduce carbon emissions, would that be ok?

If you aren't here to argue philosophy and philosophical positions you are in the wrong forum, or at least the wrong thread. The topic is "how would a libertarian society address global warming?". I'm trying to argue philosophy: libertarian vs. the current system. You insult my philosophical question, and tell me that "If I could, I would like to be able to influence policy to get governments to enact regulation to help save the environment." Fine. But you're in the wrong thread.

If you wish to look at extremes, start looking at extremes with regard to libertarian policies. Regarding the confiscation of all motor vehicles, how could society agree to such a thing if, as you say, it's really extreme? Regarding the wrong thread, I can turn the tables on you and state that if the subject of the thread is how libertarians would handle Global Warming, then you have no business asking me how a non libertarian society handles extreme examples.

If you're so insistent on sticking to the letter of the thread's topic, then answer the question posed by the thread's title.

You just said you were ok with a system of mob rule: "collective action" and "majority defined regulation". My question was an extreme example, but you have to look at the extremes to make sense of the philosophy. Here's a milder one: If the majority of society decided that they needed to confiscate all motor vehicles in the country to reduce carbon emissions, would that be ok?

If you aren't here to argue philosophy and philosophical positions you are in the wrong forum, or at least the wrong thread. The topic is "how would a libertarian society address global warming?". I'm trying to argue philosophy: libertarian vs. the current system. You insult my philosophical question, and tell me that "If I could, I would like to be able to influence policy to get governments to enact regulation to help save the environment." Fine. But you're in the wrong thread.

If you wish to look at extremes, start looking at extremes with regard to libertarian policies.

I have. One of the difficult questions I ask which I don't currently have a good answer to is: Does it make sense that someone could own the world's water supply? Improbabilities aside, libertarianism states that a single individual could own the world's entire water supply as long as they homesteaded it properly or obtained it through voluntary exchange. Does this make sense? I'm not sure it does, but looking at the extremes allows an examination of the ideology.

Regarding the wrong thread, I can turn the tables on you and state that if the subject of the thread is how libertarians would handle Global Warming, then you have no business asking me how a non libertarian society handles extreme examples.If you're so insistent on sticking to the letter of the thread's topic, then answer the question posed by the thread's title.

This is fair. I was being somewhat of a hypocrite because I was irritated, and I can admit that. But I still wonder why you are wasting your time on a forum dominated by libertarians trying to convince them that more government regulation is good. Really, if you are so concerned about the environment and you believe the only way to fix that is through government action, why aren't you running for political office, starting an environmental group on a college campus, teaching grade school kids about the need for conservation, etc. etc. instead of being here on this forum? Seriously. Re-evaluate your strategies. How many people have you convinced so far on this forum?

But I still wonder why you are wasting your time on a forum dominated by libertarians trying to convince them that more government regulation is good. Really, if you are so concerned about the environment and you believe the only way to fix that is through government action, why aren't you running for political office, starting an environmental group on a college campus, teaching grade school kids about the need for conservation, etc. etc. instead of being here on this forum? Seriously. Re-evaluate your strategies. How many people have you convinced so far on this forum?

Excellent question/observations. To begin, preaching to the choir is not necessary, but pointing things out to those with very different views allows one to hone their arguments and points, as well as spread ideals/ideas, because as you know, forum posts aren't just for the one you're debating, but for all the other readers/lurkers as well. Regarding conservation goals, I'm seriously evaluating what and how I might engage in such activities, and this forum in the mean time allows me to explore and share my growing knowledge base on the subject.

Now, I think that was a reasonable answer.

One more note: this is the real world we're living in. If you want to debate about a (as of yet nonexistent) libertarian society and how it might address Global Warming, that's a fine hobby. But also consider the state of the World as it exists right now, and the value in discussing how environmental issues within the context of the world we are currently living in can be addressed. One of the most serious issues we all face right now is the industry which manufactures propaganda in an attempt to malign the science behind climate change, and the libertarian community is hugely responsible for a large portion of that brownlash. So consider that to be another reason why I hang out here. To put it bluntly, there are probably no small number of individuals here who choose to wear libertarian values like a costume, because of its novelty and supposed independent thought it spawns. If I can bring to their attention an alternative viewpoint, then I consider my efforts successful.

I actually think libertarians should be opposed at every front where we find them.

Personally I see right wing economic libertarianism as fascism rebranded - sure they get rid of stupid racist ideas, but still maintain positive views about social darwinism and often, suspicion of democracy.

Some of the more extreme libertarian-conservatives such as James Delingpole are beyond the pale. To these sorts of libertarians, the scientists, in particular, those connected to advancing understanding of global warming are the new jews to be demonised.

I blogged about him. http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2011/07/political-extremist-james-dellingpole.html

I actually think libertarians should be opposed at every front where we find them.

Personally I see right wing economic libertarianism as fascism rebranded - sure they get rid of stupid racist ideas, but still maintain positive views about social darwinism and often, suspicion of democracy.

Some of the more extreme libertarian-conservatives such as James Delingpole are beyond the pale. To these sorts of libertarians, the scientists, in particular, those connected to advancing understanding of global warming are the new jews to be demonised.

I blogged about him. http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2011/07/political-extremist-james-dellingpole.html

Oh, there's still plenty of racism; it's just tucked away so you don't see it. There's no more overt vilification but there's plenty of talk about dirty illegals stealing taxes and support for policies that only harm minorities.

I actually think libertarians should be opposed at every front where we find them.

Personally I see right wing economic libertarianism as fascism rebranded - sure they get rid of stupid racist ideas, but still maintain positive views about social darwinism and often, suspicion of democracy.

Some of the more extreme libertarian-conservatives such as James Delingpole are beyond the pale. To these sorts of libertarians, the scientists, in particular, those connected to advancing understanding of global warming are the new jews to be demonised.

I blogged about him. http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2011/07/political-extremist-james-dellingpole.html

Oh, there's still plenty of racism; it's just tucked away so you don't see it. There's no more overt vilification but there's plenty of talk about dirty illegals stealing taxes and support for policies that only harm minorities.

That illegals part is the worst. I don't even consider people who don't support free immigration to be real libertarians. Oh ok, you're "libertarian" so long as we do everything in the order you think is best... But for now you are just another nationalist conservative. "Libertarians" who would send armed men to break apart peaceful families. Makes me sick.

I actually think libertarians should be opposed at every front where we find them.

Personally I see right wing economic libertarianism as fascism rebranded - sure they get rid of stupid racist ideas, but still maintain positive views about social darwinism and often, suspicion of democracy.

Some of the more extreme libertarian-conservatives such as James Delingpole are beyond the pale. To these sorts of libertarians, the scientists, in particular, those connected to advancing understanding of global warming are the new jews to be demonised.

I blogged about him. http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2011/07/political-extremist-james-dellingpole.html

Oh, there's still plenty of racism; it's just tucked away so you don't see it. There's no more overt vilification but there's plenty of talk about dirty illegals stealing taxes and support for policies that only harm minorities.

That illegals part is the worst. I don't even consider people who don't support free immigration to be real libertarians. Oh ok, you're "libertarian" so long as we do everything in the order you think is best... But for now you are just another nationalist conservative. "Libertarians" who would send armed men to break apart peaceful families. Makes me sick.

No country in the world allows free immigration. It's not liberal. It's suicidal.

So what you are saying is society never agrees to anything that is extreme? I'll let you think about that.

Think about this:

The majority has the power, therefore, if the majority really wants to, the majority will do whatever the hell it wants, whenever the hell it wants - whether you think it's right or not is irrelevant. Your system, while it may condemn "might makes right" does absolutely nothing to stop it, because in unregulated-no-governmentland, the man with the biggest gun will make the rules.

Under the current system, society has agreed to entrust an entity (government) with enough power to suppress the majority, in order to protect the minority. Government says it's not ok to kill all the Mexicans, because that's what society thinks is reasonable and the government enforces society's wish. If society changes its mind and begins to think it is ok to kill Mexicans, then they have the option to change the laws to make it ok. It will be massive, massive costly and time consuming, will require great effort and tremendous backing by the populace, but it is theoretically possible. That doesn't mean the current system is a failure. That means the current system is realistic. Because you can pretend that in your system might doesn't make right and no one would be allowed to decide it's ok to kill all the Mexicans, but until you have a centralized entity in place that's powerful enough to control the majority that might want to kill all the Mexicans, your promises are hollow and your system is a pie in the sky joke.

They have gradually and systematically been weened off taking any responsibility for themselves.

They are now addicted to money they have yet to earn (credit debt) and government subsidies in order to survive.

This need to change, but let me tell you it will be bad if it happens.

Stockpile lots of guns, ammunition, tradable tangible goods, food, and seeds. Then be prepared to defend it all with your life if they ever take those social programs away, because the vast majority of the population is NOT prepared to fend for themselves, either financially, mentally, or physically.

They have gradually and systematically been weened off taking any responsibility for themselves.

They are now addicted to money they have yet to earn (credit debt) and government subsidies in order to survive.

This need to change, but let me tell you it will be bad if it happens.

Stockpile lots of guns, ammunition, tradable tangible goods, food, and seeds. Then be prepared to defend it all with your life if they ever take those social programs away, because the vast majority of the population is NOT prepared to fend for themselves, either financially, mentally, or physically.

Are you seriously thinking that you need to grow your own potatoes and raise pigs ? Is life in America really that bad or are you also stockpiling tinfoil for hats ?

Are you seriously thinking that you need to grow your own potatoes and raise pigs ? Is life in America really that bad or are you also stockpiling tinfoil for hats ?

No, but I think everyone should prepare for the worse financial times possible.

In my opinion, a collapse like that will never ocurr. What will happen is increasing prices...hyperinflation. That will be (is) our collapse. So, the more you can do for yourself in a true sustainable fashion, the more money you will save (or spend less if you cant save). The politicians will ensure a total colapse of society and infrastructure will never happen. They will create a new currency before that happens, giving the poorest people the most (percentage) in return because thats where the majority of the votes will come from.

What I was saying was that they will never take away social services, because those addicted to them will rise up, revolt, kill and steal, and pretty much do anything within their ability TO survive.

Cold and hungry people are not afraid of prison and certainly wont concern themselves with the law.

Very few people have the skills to survive on their own in this day and age ... by design.

You know, I know alot of well-off people and alot of poor people. A huge part of my family lives very meager existances with very little money, and they do it by farming and raising livestock. They are some of the happiest people I know and they do better than others in lean financial times like we are experiencing right now.

In fact, I had many conversations with my grandparents before their deaths, and they almost didnt even know there was a great depression, if it wasnt for the newspapers telling them. It simply did not affect them because they did everything for themselves on their farm and through trade/barter within their community.

Are you seriously thinking that you need to grow your own potatoes and raise pigs ? Is life in America really that bad or are you also stockpiling tinfoil for hats ?

No, but I think everyone should prepare for the worse financial times possible.

In my opinion, a collapse like that will never ocurr. What will happen is increasing prices...hyperinflation. That will be (is) our collapse. So, the more you can do for yourself in a true sustainable fashion, the more money you will save (or spend less if you cant save). The politicians will ensure a total colapse of society and infrastructure will never happen. They will create a new currency before that happens, giving the poorest people the most (percentage) in return because thats where the majority of the votes will come from.

What I was saying was that they will never take away social services, because those addicted to them will rise up, revolt, kill and steal, and pretty much do anything within their ability TO survive.

Cold and hungry people are not afraid of prison and certainly wont concern themselves with the law.

Very few people have the skills to survive on their own in this day and age ... by design.

You know, I know alot of well-off people and alot of poor people. A huge part of my family lives very meager existances with very little money, and they do it by farming and raising livestock. They are some of the happiest people I know and they do better than others in lean financial times like we are experiencing right now.

In fact, I had many conversations with my grandparents before their deaths, and they almost didnt even know there was a great depression, if it wasnt for the newspapers telling them. It simply did not affect them because they did everything for themselves on their farm and through trade/barter within their community.

Its bad that the economy isn't producing enough jobs for everyone. And its safe to say that this could go on for a long time. But social collapse is a very rare event. Iraq in 2003 is the only modern example I can think of. Our societies will be just fine - what's at issue is how to make them better.

Its bad that the economy isn't producing enough jobs for everyone. And its safe to say that this could go on for a long time. But social collapse is a very rare event. Iraq in 2003 is the only modern example I can think of. Our societies will be just fine - what's at issue is how to make them better.

I think there are some worrying Malthusian issues. we have a problem that money disguises the true workings of the economy - energy supplies are low, yet the markets think further investment in old sources is most profitable.

Unfortunately, our political economy remains governed on market principles - next 10 years, things can only get worse. Unless we see a strong turn towards towards a greater focus on resources rather than currency.

Its bad that the economy isn't producing enough jobs for everyone. And its safe to say that this could go on for a long time. But social collapse is a very rare event. Iraq in 2003 is the only modern example I can think of. Our societies will be just fine - what's at issue is how to make them better.

I think there are some worrying Malthusian issues. we have a problem that money disguises the true workings of the economy - energy supplies are low, yet the markets think further investment in old sources is most profitable.

Unfortunately, our political economy remains governed on market principles - next 10 years, things can only get worse. Unless we see a strong turn towards towards a greater focus on resources rather than currency.

Yes. It's called steady state economics, otherwise known as ecological economics.

I said in theory. Until I see an actual working free market solution I'm certainly not objecting to pollution taxes.

That's more or less the way I feel. I know all the problems with pollution taxes, but I don't know of any better way.

That's actually the general way I feel about Libertarianism overall. I can't see my way all the way through to a perfect Libertarian utopia, and such a thing probably doesn't exist. But I can certainly see a lot of ways we can make things a lot better than they are, and maybe we will figure out the rest once we get closer. (Maybe not, but as long as things keep getting better, I won't complain about the fact things aren't yet perfect.)

Regarding taxes, acknowledging that they aren't fun, and government spending can be wasteful, consider:

Tax what we want less of. Apply a zero tax, or even a negative tax to what is better. Think creatively. What do we want less of? Pollution, destruction of the environment, excessive consumerism of wasteful products, hunger. What do we want more of? Efficient solutions, not efficient exploitation. That's the problem with capitalism today - it encourages efficient exploitation, not necessarily efficient solutions for the consumer.

I made a long post about automobile design and production. I mentioned the Volkswagen XL1 (http://www.motortrend.com/future/concept_vehicles/1101_volkswagen_xl1_concept_look/viewall.html) as an example. The key is to get businesses to compete effectively in a constructive way. Right now, automakers compete by determining the most efficient way to sell expensive automobiles. We want to get them to compete at building the most efficient automobiles. Big difference.

I've been thinking of one way to do it, and I'm not entirely sure of the mathematics behind it, but follow along.

Take the full lineup of new automobiles available today. Split them into ten tiers, numbered one through ten, where the least efficient autos are in tier one, and the most efficient are in tier ten. Tier one gets the highest tax. Tier five gets the lowest positive tax. Tier ten gets the largest negative tax. Now the automakers will compete like crazy to get their auto lineup into the top tier.

If most everyone buys only automobiles in tier ten, then it becomes even more difficult to get your auto placed into tier ten, because the negative tax has to be paid by the positive taxes below it.

Wealthy people can afford whatever auto they want, regardless of tax. People who aren't wealthy will embrace the negative tax on the most efficient autos, and benefit from their efficiency.

Efficiency should increase drastically, much more aggressively than today, as automakers compete to always have autos in the top tiers. New auto startups will obviously strive to only have autos in the top tiers, and by doing so, they'll be able to compete because of the negative tax. This will increase competition for efficiency even further.

Notice that this system does not mandate a specific MPG requirement. For example, the government currently might be mandating 30+ MPG for future automobiles. The problem is, that might be too difficult or too easy for automakers to meet. But what I'm proposing drives the market to competitively up the MPG continuously with no upper limit, and the end result should approach the MPG of the Volkswagen XL1, which happens to be 260 MPG.

Tax what we want less of. Apply a zero tax, or even a negative tax to what is better. Think creatively. What do we want less of? Pollution, destruction of the environment, excessive consumerism of wasteful products, hunger. What do we want more of? Efficient solutions, not efficient exploitation. That's the problem with capitalism today - it encourages efficient exploitation, not necessarily efficient solutions for the consumer.

The optimum amount of pollution is not zero. (If it was, we couldn't cook food or breathe.) Unless you have evidence that the present level of pollution is above the optimum level, it is entirely possible that what we actually want is *more* pollution.

Using taxes to engineer society in this way requires a government that can make these decisions rationally. I have little hope that such a thing is likely to ever exist.

The optimum amount of pollution is not zero. (If it was, we couldn't cook food or breathe.) Unless you have evidence that the present level of pollution is above the optimum level, it is entirely possible that what we actually want is *more* pollution.

That's like saying you want more automobile accidents because you want more people driving. You may accept a higher incident rate of accidents to realize more people driving, but that does not mean you don't want to strive towards maximizing the ratio of people driving to automobile accidents.

Likewise, you want to maximize the ratio of cooked food to smoke. And regarding automobiles as I mentioned in my prior post, you want to maximize the miles that can be driven quickly and in comfort to the cost of doing so, which is generally fuel burned and pollutants generated.

In all cases, artificial constraints placed upon the markets to maximize the ratios is better than assuming that the markets will figure it out sans those constraints, because the markets usually flow and gravitate towards some other local minima or maxima which has less regard for many detrimental external factors, which ultimately come back to haunt everyone in the future.

The optimum amount of pollution is not zero. (If it was, we couldn't cook food or breathe.) Unless you have evidence that the present level of pollution is above the optimum level, it is entirely possible that what we actually want is *more* pollution.

That's like saying you want more automobile accidents because you want more people driving. You may accept a higher incident rate of accidents to realize more people driving, but that does not mean you don't want to strive towards maximizing the ratio of people driving to automobile accidents.

No, but it does mean that if you apply external downward pressure on automobile accidents, you may just increase the amount of efficient driving that's suppressed.

Using taxes to engineer society in this way requires a government that can make these decisions rationally. I have little hope that such a thing is likely to ever exist.

There is hope: Futarchy. Take for example this global warming debate. Let us create prediction markets for global temperature, contingent on global emissions levels. People will bet on these markets, and based on these predictions governments could determine a transparently optimized emissions cap. If global warming really is a myth, then on average the conservatives here would make money AND raise the cap so high as to be irrelevant.

The problem, up until now, is that long-term bets require you hand over inflating currency so rational people would rarely use them. Why invest in negative-sum markets? Bitcoin helps with this since eventually it will appreciate in value as quickly as the Bitcoin economy growth, making savings (and bets) more attractive.

The optimum amount of pollution is not zero. (If it was, we couldn't cook food or breathe.) Unless you have evidence that the present level of pollution is above the optimum level, it is entirely possible that what we actually want is *more* pollution.

That's like saying you want more automobile accidents because you want more people driving. You may accept a higher incident rate of accidents to realize more people driving, but that does not mean you don't want to strive towards maximizing the ratio of people driving to automobile accidents.

No, but it does mean that if you apply external downward pressure on automobile accidents, you may just increase the amount of efficient driving that's suppressed.

I'm saying that if we think we want less pollution, and respond by exerting downward pressure on the amount of pollution, we may wind up with an amount of pollution that's inefficiently low.

Quote

For the record, I think most people would agree that we want *less* pollution and *less* accidents, and solutions that will improve those ratios of good to bad.

I agree. That's because most people don't understand the issues. They just assume that we'd be better off with less of bad things without thinking that a bit less of bad things may mean much less of good things. There is a tendency to assume that bad consequences are inherently inefficient, but that reasoning is bogus. In fact, that reasoning may be so bogus that the level of bad things we have is already inefficiently low.

For example, many people are worried that they might die in a plane accident. But if they responded by putting downward pressure on their chances of dying in a plane accident, they would most likely wind up increasing their chances of dying in a car accident or irrationally forgoing opportunities for business or pleasure travel. While plane accidents are certainly bad, there's no reason to think they're inefficiently bad. If the government, for example, put downward pressure on plane accidents, it would likely result in higher ticket prices, which would actually kill more people in car accidents.

Global warming, if it is in fact a problem and being caused by human activity, is a tragedy of the commons that can only be dealt with by government. The problem is that a collection of governments is no different than a collection of people: there is nothing to enforce compliance among them to a plan them without a higher authority.

The minarchic variant of libertarianism accepts the legitimacy of government action to prevent destruction of the commons, so in this sense is no different than how other political ideologies would deal with global warming.

Global warming, if it is in fact a problem and being caused by human activity, is a tragedy of the commons that can only be dealt with by government. The problem is that a collection of governments is no different than a collection of people: there is nothing to enforce compliance among them to a plan them without a higher authority.

The minarchic variant of libertarianism accepts the legitimacy of government action to prevent destruction of the commons, so in this sense is no different than how other political ideologies would deal with global warming.

Tragedy of the commons? Get rid of the commons. Make everything privately owned. Problem solved.

Tragedy of the commons? Get rid of the commons. Make everything privately owned. Problem solved.

Oh for crying out loud. Stop it with that. You honestly don't know enough about the environment, ecosystems, the oceans, human behavior, or the events that have transpired over the last 40,000 years to slap your ideology on it and call it solved. Furthermore, we live in this world, not your fabled world where we just make everything privately owned.

Read this book: Valuing the Earth (http://www.amazon.com/Valuing-Earth-Economics-Ecology-Ethics/dp/0262540681). One of the contributors is Garrett Hardin, the author of The Tragedy of the Commons.

Note: Show your mettle. Write a clear path demonstrating how everything can become privately owned given the state of today's world. Then start weighing the pros and cons of your solution, assuming you've demonstrated how it can be achieved, after you've educated yourself more thoroughly in a number of subjects.

And while you're at it, consider these questions. What was the limiting factor to deep sea fishing 150 years ago? What is the limiting factor today? How does the tragedy of the commons apply? How does private ownership address these issues? How is this problem analogous to other problems?

Tragedy of the commons? Get rid of the commons. Make everything privately owned. Problem solved.

Oh for crying out loud. Stop it with that. You honestly don't know enough about the environment, ecosystems, the oceans, human behavior, or the events that have transpired over the last 40,000 years to slap your ideology on it and call it solved. Furthermore, we live in this world, not your fabled world where we just make everything privately owned.

Read this book: Valuing the Earth (http://www.amazon.com/Valuing-Earth-Economics-Ecology-Ethics/dp/0262540681). One of the contributors is Garrett Hardin, the author of The Tragedy of the Commons.

Note: Show your mettle. Write a clear path demonstrating how everything can become privately owned given the state of today's world. Then start weighing the pros and cons of your solution, assuming you've demonstrated how it can be achieved, after you've educated yourself more thoroughly in a number of subjects.

And while you're at it, consider these questions. What was the limiting factor to deep sea fishing 150 years ago? What is the limiting factor today? How does the tragedy of the commons apply? How does private ownership address these issues? How is this problem analogous to other problems?

Show me how we get to non-slavery from slavery then weigh the pros and cons of it. Oddly enough, let's not mention justice at all.

Show me how we get to non-slavery from slavery then weigh the pros and cons of it. Oddly enough, let's not mention justice at all.

Did you see me make a post advocating non-slavery recently? If I had, I might be inclined to explore the idea further. Your request is akin to me suggesting you demonstrate how we can colonize the moons of Jupiter this century, which is something I would only ask of you if you had been incessantly saying we should colonize the moons of Jupiter this century.

You have incessantly been saying that we should make everything privately owned. My request of you is justified.

Show me how we get to non-slavery from slavery then weigh the pros and cons of it. Oddly enough, let's not mention justice at all.

Did you see me make a post advocating non-slavery recently? If I had, I might be inclined to explore the idea further. Your request is akin to me suggesting you demonstrate how we can colonize the moons of Jupiter this century, which is something I would only ask of you if you had been incessantly saying we should colonize the moons of Jupiter this century.

You have incessantly been saying that we should make everything privately owned. My request of you is justified.

Not really. I'm not saying it's cheap. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm not saying it's likely. I'm saying we should do it.

Global warming, if it is in fact a problem and being caused by human activity, is a tragedy of the commons that can only be dealt with by government. The problem is that a collection of governments is no different than a collection of people: there is nothing to enforce compliance among them to a plan them without a higher authority.

The minarchic variant of libertarianism accepts the legitimacy of government action to prevent destruction of the commons, so in this sense is no different than how other political ideologies would deal with global warming.

Tragedy of the commons? Get rid of the commons. Make everything privately owned. Problem solved.

That would be possible if you could bottle it to the exclusion of others. An air compressor does this. The air in your house might also qualify. To just verbally claim something as yours, doesn't suffice. There would have to be a way to distinguish your physical property as being identified as specifically yours. That's pretty hard to do with air. The same could be said for the moon, the stars, and a number of other things that are hard to reach, contain, label or identify in some manner.

Even highly trafficked roads/byways/paths are hard to identify as owned even when the road is easily identifiable and possessible as real estate. Temporary occupancy and abandonment in this way is similar to the way we breathe air. You inhale it, and while it's in your lungs, it's exclusively your property; after you exhale it, the air is abandoned, and thus available for others to use again.

However, were you to spuriously claim ownership one day to either the air or the road, I don't think that would be justifiable, since where you were freely able to breathe the day before, or travel on a specific road, now you cannot without trespass or theft. Seems to me to be a bit of a paradox.

That would be possible if you could bottle it to the exclusion of others. An air compressor does this. The air in your house might also qualify. To just verbally claim something as yours, doesn't suffice. There would have to be a way to distinguish your physical property as being identified as specifically yours. That's pretty hard to do with air. The same could be said for the moon, the stars, and a number of other things that are hard to reach, contain, label or identify in some manner.

Even highly trafficked roads/byways/paths are hard to identify as owned even when the road is easily identifiable and possessible as real estate. Temporary occupancy and abandonment in this way is similar to the way we breathe air. You inhale it, and while it's in your lungs, it's exclusively your property; after you exhale it, the air is abandoned, and thus available for others to use again.

However, were you to spuriously claim ownership one day to either the air or the road, I don't think that would be justifiable, since where you were freely able to breathe the day before, or travel on a specific road, now you cannot without trespass or theft. Seems to me to be a bit of a paradox.

Air. Water. Moisture. Invertebrates. Fish. Whales. Migratory animals. Eroded soil. Soil in the rivers. Heck, rivers (but I said that when I said water). Oceans (it's like air). Aquifers (it's water, you know). The negative space in caves (air, you know). Birds (free as a bird?). Heck, let's just say wild animals. Of course, now we need to acknowledge that they are beings, and by extension, we need to acknowledge their homes, which is the air, sea and ground.

Ecosystems.

Ah! Ecosystems are like air! They move around, they change, and what happens over here affects over there - just like air, because it mixes.

We need air. That's just plain fucking obvious. But do we need ecosystems? Ummm, they're really complex. Yeah, so unless one makes the effort to understand them, maybe one should be careful about who has what rights to change them.

Air. Water. Moisture. Invertebrates. Fish. Whales. Migratory animals. Eroded soil. Soil in the rivers. Heck, rivers (but I said that when I said water). Oceans (it's like air). Aquifers (it's water, you know). The negative space in caves (air, you know). Birds (free as a bird?). Heck, let's just say wild animals. Of course, now we need to acknowledge that they are beings, and by extension, we need to acknowledge their homes, which is the air, sea and ground.

Air, unless contained, no. Water, unless contained, no. Invertebrates, fish, whales, migratory animals? They're all possessable unless they aren't yet. I'm not sure if you understood my meaning. To own something you have to be able to identify it and contain it for it to become property. If you can't do those things, then it's likely unoccupied or abandoned for now, but could be obtained in the future. And no I don't qualify a wild animal as having a "home", at least not in the legal sense. That would imply they have property rights. They don't. Humans have property rights.

Quote

Ecosystems.

Ah! Ecosystems are like air! They move around, they change, and what happens over here affects over there - just like air, because it mixes.

We need air. That's just plain fucking obvious. But do we need ecosystems? Ummm, they're really complex. Yeah, so unless one makes the effort to understand them, maybe one should be careful about who has what rights to change them.

Yes one should be careful in one's environment. However, my use of my property is exclusive to me, and you have no greater right to tell me what I can do on my land any more than I can dictate to you what you can do on yours. That's the whole premise of property. It derives from the latin word 'proprius', or one's own. If I can't do what I want on my property because you say I can't, my property ceases to be mine and becomes yours. Of course, I could no doubt do the same to you. Do that back and forth a few times and you've got yourself a war/feud. Not interested.

Air. Water. Moisture. Invertebrates. Fish. Whales. Migratory animals. Eroded soil. Soil in the rivers. Heck, rivers (but I said that when I said water). Oceans (it's like air). Aquifers (it's water, you know). The negative space in caves (air, you know). Birds (free as a bird?). Heck, let's just say wild animals. Of course, now we need to acknowledge that they are beings, and by extension, we need to acknowledge their homes, which is the air, sea and ground.

Air, unless contained, no. Water, unless contained, no. Invertebrates, fish, whales, migratory animals? They're all possessable unless they aren't yet. I'm not sure if you understood my meaning. To own something you have to be able to identify it and contain it for it to become property. If you can't do those things, then it's likely unoccupied or abandoned for now, but could be obtained in the future. And no I don't qualify a wild animal as having a "home", at least not in the legal sense. That would imply they have property rights. They don't. Humans have property rights.

Quote

Ecosystems.

Ah! Ecosystems are like air! They move around, they change, and what happens over here affects over there - just like air, because it mixes.

We need air. That's just plain fucking obvious. But do we need ecosystems? Ummm, they're really complex. Yeah, so unless one makes the effort to understand them, maybe one should be careful about who has what rights to change them.

Yes one should be careful in one's environment. However, my use of my property is exclusive to me, and you have no greater right to tell me what I can do on my land any more than I can dictate to you what you can do on yours. That's the whole premise of property. It derives from the latin word 'proprius', or one's own. If I can't do what I want on my property because you say I can't, my property ceases to be mine and becomes yours. Of course, I could no doubt do the same to you. Do that back and forth a few times and you've got yourself a war/feud. Not interested.

Sounds like you're trying to impose a human construct (the notion of property rights) on things because it's convenient for your beliefs.

You can own a whale? Really? Why is that? Wait, let me see - it's because you believe you have that right. Who enforces that right?

That river in your backyard - by your logic, you can contain it (create a dam), and thus you own the water in the river. Is that acceptable?

To be clear, I understand the necessity of property rights, and believe in them. To a point.

Sounds like you're trying to impose a human construct (the notion of property rights) on things because it's convenient for your beliefs.

Without that "convenience" you have misery, confusion, chaos and ultimately death due to war. It isn't just convenient for me. It's convenient for everybody. I certainly am not the chief architect of that belief and I certainly won't be the last.

Quote

You can own a whale? Really? Why is that? Wait, let me see - it's because you believe you have that right. Who enforces that right?

Sure I can own a whale. What's so hard about that? In the case of enforcement, and if I'm capable, that'd be me. If I need assistance in securing my whale, I might employ somebody else to help me. Wow, is it really that difficult?

Quote

That river in your backyard - by your logic, you can contain it (create a dam), and thus you own the water in the river. Is that acceptable?

Maybe the riverbed or the borders of the river, but maybe not all of the water flowing by/thru per se. It would depend on who's downstream of me. Another edge case I suppose, but not impossible to envision.

Quote

To be clear, I understand the necessity of property rights, and believe in them. To a point.

Lemme guess, to the point it emotionally inconveniences you right? I look at it this way: unless whatever you do specifically brings harm to my property thru some physical force (as forcefully applied to me and the things embordered within my land), it's merely my opinion that your use of your property sucks, and I can choose to not like it.

Notwithstanding that emotional feeling, if my property remains uneffected physically, there shouldn't be anything legal I would be able to do about it. On the other hand if you pollute my land, trespass my land, or effectuate specific physical changes in my property, you just might have something to worry about.

Emotionally? As usual, you're being naive. It's analogous to you being informed that you had better put tires on your car that are rated for its weight, and you accusing the guy making that recommendation that he just likes the way the tires look.

The less you know, the more cool your ideas look. And the arguments against your ideas must just be emotional. You've said some very strange things in this forum.

Emotionally? As usual, you're being naive. It's analogous to you being informed that you had better put tires on your car that are rated for its weight, and you accusing the guy making that recommendation that he just likes the way the tires look.

The less you know, the more cool your ideas look. And the arguments against your ideas must just be emotional. You've said some very strange things in this forum.

Genius. You find the only potentially speculative comment regarding an emotional state, and you attack it. You don't actually consider my logic or reasoning, but attack a comment on feelings and emotions. Perfect. Why are we having this conversation?

A tire's rating and looks are two separate matters altogether, which was my entire point. An emotion is an attitude about a specific thing (an indisputable object due to it's existence), because the objects is a "certain way". I'm merely saying your personal feelings about the disposition of my property should have no legal effect on the use of my property. If you don't like how I use my property, you don't get to take it from me just because you feel that way. I could do the same to you, but for different reasons. Where does one draw the line? I say it is at the edge of my property, period.

A tire's rating and looks are two separate matters altogether, which was my entire point.

Actually, that was my point. The value of the environment, it's ecosystems, etc is separate from an emotional attachment to it. Learn about the value of the environment and its ecosystems, the services they provide, and then reformulate your arguments such that they don't sound like they've been written by one who is ignorant of those values and services.

Also, you might want to study ethics while you're at it.

Containment defines ownership? Well, I suppose I could buy the road that your property has access to, since you're in favor of private roads. Then I could buy the properties on both sides of your land and behind you. Then I could build a wall around your property. And I'm assuming that you haven't yet claimed the air above your property because you haven't built a bubble over your property, so if you haven't claimed that air, I'll just claim it, and then I can engage in construction in that space and build a roof over your property as well.

Guess what? I've just contained you - therefore I get to say I own you. Now what were you saying about owning a whale? Oh, I see - it's beneath you on the scale of sentience. Like I said, study ethics.

Now, as for you owning insects on your property, I won't play the ethics card there. But I will point out your ignorance with regard to the complexities of ecosystems. Recall the post I made about wolves, trophic cascades and riparian zones? Either you do, or you decided it wasn't convenient to your belief system. Better to remain naive than to be inconvenienced by knowledge.

Are you familiar with the spotted owl and the controversy surrounding it? I'm quite certain you don't understand what the purpose of saving the spotted owl is, based on your general remarks. Or do you?

Now, as for you owning insects on your property, I won't play the ethics card there. But I will point out your ignorance with regard to the complexities of ecosystems. Recall the post I made about wolves, trophic cascades and riparian zones? Either you do, or you decided it wasn't convenient to your belief system. Better to remain naive than to be inconvenienced by knowledge.

Are you familiar with the spotted owl and the controversy surrounding it? I'm quite certain you don't understand what the purpose of saving the spotted owl is, based on your general remarks. Or do you?

The ethics card stops at humans. If you include other species, then you can divide and conquer anybody because of the flora and fauna you might find on their property. Sounds like we have a land grab about to commence. Nice... where will it stop I wonder?

By the way, I do like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses too. I'll probably just leave them to their business. Just stay out of my back yard. Thanks.

Now, as for you owning insects on your property, I won't play the ethics card there. But I will point out your ignorance with regard to the complexities of ecosystems. Recall the post I made about wolves, trophic cascades and riparian zones? Either you do, or you decided it wasn't convenient to your belief system. Better to remain naive than to be inconvenienced by knowledge.

Are you familiar with the spotted owl and the controversy surrounding it? I'm quite certain you don't understand what the purpose of saving the spotted owl is, based on your general remarks. Or do you?

The ethics card stops at humans. If you include other species, then you can divide and conquer anybody because of the flora and fauna you might find on their property. Sounds like we have a land grab about to commence. Nice... where will it stop I wonder?

By the way, I do like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses too. I'll probably just leave them to their business. Just stay out of my back yard. Thanks.

You can't say you like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses and then say its OK to make species extinct. If someone is doing something that affects a species survival, society has a duty to stop them.

You can't say you like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses and then say its OK to make species extinct. If someone is doing something that affects a species survival, society has a duty to stop them.

I dare you to find anywhere where I said extinct. Get back to me whenever.

You can't say you like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses and then say its OK to make species extinct. If someone is doing something that affects a species survival, society has a duty to stop them.

I dare you to find anywhere where I said extinct. Get back to me whenever.

Then you agree that society can intervene onto someone's land when the objective is to protect the survival of species. Fine - we are in agreement.

Maybe the riverbed or the borders of the river, but maybe not all of the water flowing by/thru per se. It would depend on who's downstream of me. Another edge case I suppose, but not impossible to envision.

Edge case? This is already a source of conflict in Africa, and will undoubtedly increase in the coming years.

Then you agree that society can intervene onto someone's land when the objective is to protect the survival of species. Fine - we are in agreement.

No and no again.

Then you believe its not OK for society to prevent species being made extinct?

If I'm understanding his position correctly, the society which values these species should offer to buy the land, buy enough specimens to relocate them, pay the landowner to change his destructive ways, or some other voluntary alternative.

This is kinda like the "wanting MORE pollution" thing; stopping at nothing to save all species may have worse consequences than letting some die.

If I'm understanding his position correctly, the society which values these species should offer to buy the land, buy enough specimens to relocate them, pay the landowner to change his destructive ways, or some other voluntary alternative.

This already is happening in big ways. The Nature Conservancy is buying up huge areas of rain forest where it can, but it can't do it fast enough, and before you declare that you understand or don't understand the significance of "fast enough", be prepared to research the magnitude of the problem. The first thing you need to understand is the importance of preserving ecosystems for our own continued existence on this planet. Then you need to understand the extinction rate acceleration that is occurring. Over the past 450 million years or so, the average extinction rate has been one species per million per year. Currently, almost entirely due to man, the extinction rate is 1,000 to 10,000 species per million per year. That's 0.1 to 1 percent per year. Do the math.

Other philanthropists buying up land are Yvon Chouinard and Doug Thompkins, owners of Patagonia, Inc. and The North Face.

Regarding buying specimens to relocate - this contributes to the problem. Not the idea, but the fact that there are people like you who think this will work. Species are part of their ecosystem. It's not so easy to just relocate them. And this brings me to the spotted owl. Perhaps you've heard of the spotted owl and the controversy between the ESA and the logging companies? What's that controversy about, anyway? I'll explain. Protection of the spotted owl is not about saving the spotted owl - it's about that and a whole lot more. You see, by saving the spotted owl, which has been identified as an umbrella species, what's really happening is setting in motion the necessary rules to save the very important and last remaining old growth forests in the country, because the spotted owl cannot survive anywhere else. They can live in secondary growth forests, but cannot resist going extinct unless the old growth forests are saved. And by saving the old growth forests, whole ecosystems which hundreds, perhaps many thousands of species depend on can also survive. So the spotted owl provides the umbrella to the whole region.

Quote

This is kinda like the "wanting MORE pollution" thing; stopping at nothing to save all species may have worse consequences than letting some die.

Short term, there may be some negative consequences. But on balance, generally both in the short term, and the long term, the benefits far outweigh the negative effects. And what is required, before speculating too much on these matters, is to really understand the ramifications of what you're saying.

I challenge you to enumerate all the benefits of preserving biodiversity and ecosystems off the top of your head. But I also encourage you to make an earnest attempt to research the matter enough so that if you can't name those benefits off the top of your head, you will be able to after researching the matter.

Here are some particular things you might want to become familiar with:

The Great Amphibian Dying: amphibian extinctions are considered to be early indicators of bad things to come. Why? They spend their adolescent years in the water, and their adult years in the soil, typically in forests. They breathe through their skin. This means they're susceptible to toxins in the water, toxins in the soil, pollutants in the atmosphere, and deforestation. In other words, they're more vulnerable than most species, and thus a sort of early warning indicator of the Earth's natural systems going bad. Do you care to speculate why there were massive amphibian extinctions on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada but not on the east side? I can spell it out for you if you can't figure it out yourself.

The Sumatran rhino: here's a classic example of exploitation and collateral damage to satisfy free markets. Furthermore, it's an example of increased rarity contributing to an accelerated harvesting of these creatures.

The Blue whale: there used to be hundreds of thousands of blue whales. In 1930-31, 29,400 were hunted in the Antarctic alone. They nearly went extinct (down to a few hundred), but due to regulations enacted, they are recovering, and now number in the thousands, but less than 10,000.

Learn about trophic cascades caused by predators, and how these cascades are responsible for important things you might take for granted, like water quality, via natural regulation of riparian zones. As mentioned earlier, learn about umbrella species, and keystone species, and what their significance is.

Learn about how future technology can both aid in development of new technologies through the study of species that we haven't yet fully studied. It would be a shame to lose all those species, and instead find ourselves on a desolate desert world devoid of a wealth of information embedded in the ecosystems we destroyed.

You might want to learn about ecosystem fragmentation, and edge effects as well.

You might want to educate yourself on deep sea fishing, and what the limiting factors are which determine the annual global fish haul, and how those limiting factors have changed over the past several hundred years.

Perhaps you might want to take the time to learn about wildlife corridors, and what their importance is.

And of course, become familiar with the overkill hypothesis. The areas of of interest would be New Zealand, Australia, the Pacific Islands, North America, South America, and Europe. Ever wonder why all the megafauna extinctions on all those land masses coincided exactly with the appearance of man? Ever wonder why we have so few large animals on all those continents? Ever wonder why we do have large animals (megafauna) in Africa?

You can't say you like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses and then say its OK to make species extinct. If someone is doing something that affects a species survival, society has a duty to stop them.

I dare you to find anywhere where I said extinct. Get back to me whenever.

I'll get back to you now. Get educated, so that you're qualified to discuss these matters.

But you almost certainly know less than you should. I know less than I should, but it's obviously more than you. Read this recent post of mine:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg530155#msg530155

As for your answer, you clearly do believe that God put the animals here for our pleasure and use. Sad.

I seem to have a lot of problems with people putting words in my mouth. Except for this response, I've never mentioned God in our discourses. Please refrain from inferring anything other than what I've actually said, if you can. I'm sure you've got a 'backspace' key. Use it a little more often.

But you almost certainly know less than you should. I know less than I should, but it's obviously more than you. Read this recent post of mine:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg530155#msg530155

As for your answer, you clearly do believe that God put the animals here for our pleasure and use. Sad.

I seem to have a lot of problems with people putting words in my mouth. Except for this response, I've never mentioned God in our discourses. Please refrain from inferring anything other than what I've actually said, if you can. I'm sure you've got a 'backspace' key. Use it a little more often.

I won't put words in your mouth if you'd choose to state clearly your beliefs and position, and the reasoning behind those positions. Why do you take the position you do? Is it because of an antiquated and unenlightened view? Is it because you lack empathy? Is it because you value the freedom of being able to produce a product or buy a product far more than most everything else.

Furthermore, don't be one of those ignoramuses that believe the preservation of a species is strictly for ethical reasons.

But you almost certainly know less than you should. I know less than I should, but it's obviously more than you. Read this recent post of mine:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg530155#msg530155

As for your answer, you clearly do believe that God put the animals here for our pleasure and use. Sad.

I seem to have a lot of problems with people putting words in my mouth. Except for this response, I've never mentioned God in our discourses. Please refrain from inferring anything other than what I've actually said, if you can. I'm sure you've got a 'backspace' key. Use it a little more often.

I won't put words in your mouth if you'd choose to state clearly your beliefs and position, and the reasoning behind those positions. Why do you take the position you do? Is it because of an antiquated and unenlightened view? Is it because you lack empathy? Is it because you value the freedom of being able to produce a product or buy a product far more than most everything else.

Furthermore, don't be one of those ignoramuses that believe the preservation of a species is strictly for ethical reasons.

Actually, if his position on nukes is anything to go by, he doesn't care about preservation of OUR species.

Fred, is that your position? You are happy for our species to be made extinct in preservation of your pretty treatise on "the law?"

Actually, if his position on nukes is anything to go by, he doesn't care about preservation of OUR species.

Fred, is that your position? You are happy for our species to be made extinct in preservation of your pretty treatise on "the law?"

Your being idiotic. I wrote the law for the very purpose of "preserving" our liberties and thus the human species. I trust those who I entrust my security. I don't trust those who force me to trust them. I never will. Forcing me to do something sans provocation will never win you "brownie points" with me.

Actually, if his position on nukes is anything to go by, he doesn't care about preservation of OUR species.

Fred, is that your position? You are happy for our species to be made extinct in preservation of your pretty treatise on "the law?"

Your being idiotic. I wrote the law for the very purpose of "preserving" our liberties and thus the human species. I trust those who I entrust my security. I don't trust those who force me to trust them. I never will. Forcing me to do something sans provocation will never win you "brownie points" with me.

In the absence of specific knowledge, it's not that hard to trick yourself into thinking that your ideas are well thought out. I have provided quite a bit of information in this thread, and others. I believe I have provided quite a fair bit of explanation on how things work, statistics, etc. More than you have.

You're interested in preserving the human species? I actually believe you. I just don't think you know enough to be proposing ideas on the subject.

Actually, if his position on nukes is anything to go by, he doesn't care about preservation of OUR species.

Fred, is that your position? You are happy for our species to be made extinct in preservation of your pretty treatise on "the law?"

Your being idiotic. I wrote the law for the very purpose of "preserving" our liberties and thus the human species. I trust those who I entrust my security. I don't trust those who force me to trust them. I never will. Forcing me to do something sans provocation will never win you "brownie points" with me.

Don't say taking you at your word is idiotic. If you have your way, millions will die and their property will be uninhabitable for generations. That's what nukes are for. They have no other use.

Now lets make things absolutely clear:

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Question: If a piece of paper can be lit by a match and burn a house down with all the occupants in it every time, should we regulate paper use?

This would be a better question for you to ask: If a person can possess a nuke, and by pressing a button, obliterate a whole town and cause radioactive damage further out, should we regulate ownership of nukes by persons?

Three things wrong with this. Paper has other uses. A burning house takes some time, and there is a chance of rescue. A burned house is not an obliterated city.

Try again.

The materials in a nuclear bomb can be used for nuclear power. The metals the bomb is composed of can be used to build a bridge. They also have other uses. Of course, I could take the metals and make a fork to poke your eye out too. It goes to intent.

Three things wrong with this. Paper has other uses. A burning house takes some time, and there is a chance of rescue. A burned house is not an obliterated city.

Try again.

The materials in a nuclear bomb can be used for nuclear power. The metals the bomb is composed of can be used to build a bridge. They also have other uses. Of course, I could take the metals and make a fork to poke your eye out too. It goes to intent.

When did a bridge require metals that you can't possess? When was it determined that it was likely that there would be much benefit to any person or society at large to allow a single individual to effectively try and construct power plants which are safe?

When did a bridge require metals that you can't possess? When was it determined that it was likely that there would be much benefit to any person or society at large to allow a single individual to effectively try and construct power plants which are safe?

If you can find it in the periodic table of the chemical elements, then you can possess it. I'm not going to answer your power plant question as it's a red herring and digresses from the topic at hand.

Don't say taking you at your word is idiotic. If you have your way, millions will die and their property will be uninhabitable for generations. That's what nukes are for. They have no other use.

Now lets make things absolutely clear:

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Question: If a piece of paper can be lit by a match and burn a house down with all the occupants in it every time, should we regulate paper use?

A piece of paper is not a weapon of mass destruction. There is a difference between burning 1 house at a time slowly and burning an entire city in a second.

Now with respect, please give your position; if it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

A piece of paper is not a weapon of mass destruction. There is a difference between burning 1 house at a time slowly and burning an entire city in a second.

Now with respect, please give your position; if it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Define the word "regulation" as it relates specifically to "nuclear bombs". Use your own words.

A piece of paper is not a weapon of mass destruction. There is a difference between burning 1 house at a time slowly and burning an entire city in a second.

Now with respect, please give your position; if it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Define the word "regulation" as it relates specifically to "nuclear bombs". Use your own words.

The danger of nukes is of total human extinction. Therefore regulation should try to eliminate their physical existence over time and meanwhile reduce the risk of those that do exist. It should limit access to them to those who already have it. And get those who already have it to decommission it. While we are waiting for that, ensure that no 1 individual can ever detonate a nuke and ensure that they are stored safely so that no accidental detonations occur.

Its bad that they exist at all. A regulation system should aim to eliminate the risk of a nuclear holocaust.

Are nuclear weapons causing global warming? It seems were drifting pretty far from the OP. Perhaps we should take this conversation elsewhere.

Its a question of fundamentals. If you don't care about extinction of humanity through nuclear holocaust, then global warming will never be an issue. If you do care about that enough to prevent it, then there is a logical basis for seeing if global warming is a true threat and if it can be prevented.

Its a question of fundamentals. If you don't care about extinction of humanity through nuclear holocaust, then global warming will never be an issue. If you do care about that enough to prevent it, then there is a logical basis for seeing if global warming is a true threat and if it can be prevented.

Every is-ought issue is a question of fundamentals. I don't want to connect nuclear holocaust to global warming, which it seems you're trying to do. Use this thread for what it was intended. It seems you're taking this nuke thing to a bunch of threads where it wasn't supposed to be.

Its a question of fundamentals. If you don't care about extinction of humanity through nuclear holocaust, then global warming will never be an issue. If you do care about that enough to prevent it, then there is a logical basis for seeing if global warming is a true threat and if it can be prevented.

Every is-ought issue is a question of fundamentals. I don't want to connect nuclear holocaust to global warming, which it seems you're trying to do. Use this thread for what it was intended. It seems you're taking this nuke thing to a bunch of threads where it wasn't supposed to be.

Frederic, they are related... they're both examples of disasters which can be averted through regulation. You, as a fundie libertarian, seem to want no regulation on anything, even things which affect the well-being of millions of people.

Frederic, they are related... they're both examples of disasters which can be averted through regulation. You, as a fundie libertarian, seem to want no regulation on anything, even things which affect the well-being of millions of people.

All laws are regulatory in nature. It's certain types of laws I oppose, not the concept of laws in and of themselves. Don't assume. I'm also not a fundie libertarian or a fundie. I don't like labels personally, since they rarely fit exactly who I am. And even if I were, you labeling me as such doesn't change my logic any, that's just ad hominem. It shows that you might be acting a bit infantile (yes I know... ad hominem, nobody likes it).

All laws are regulatory in nature. It's certain types of laws I oppose, not the concept of laws in and of themselves.

It seems that laws are either coercive or restrictive. You must go do this, or you must not do that. I realize it's likely you separate them in other ways. What are the certain types of laws that you oppose?

It seems that laws are either coercive or restrictive. You must go do this, or you must not do that. I realize it's likely you separate them in other ways. What are the certain types of laws that you oppose?

...The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

It seems that laws are either coercive or restrictive. You must go do this, or you must not do that. I realize it's likely you separate them in other ways. What are the certain types of laws that you oppose?

...The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

- Herbert Spencer

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".

- John Stuart Mill

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

- Herbert Spencer

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".

- John Stuart Mill

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

-Murray Rothbard

*slurps drink*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

The third quote contradicts the first two. If someone has smallpox, they may have no harmful intentions but they have to be quarantined.

A person with smallpox would be an aggressor regardless of his intention. It's the act that defines violence. Good intentions nor purported innocence makes a man's violent act or pollution less violent or polluting.

"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

- Herbert Spencer

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".

- John Stuart Mill

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

-Murray Rothbard

*slurps drink*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Sorry about not providing attribution. I had the quote but not the reference to the author. Thanks.

/me twiddles his thumbs waiting for Fred to lecture us on the right to have smallpox on your own property

You could probably possess the smallpox strain in a containment vessel and that would be fine. That's already being done anyway. If however you were infected with smallpox, and you wanted to physically interact with others, that could be construed as sufficiently life-threatening, and could be defended against. Quarantining would be apropos.

/me twiddles his thumbs waiting for Fred to lecture us on the right to have smallpox on your own property

You could probably possess the smallpox strain in a containment vessel and that would be fine. That's already being done anyway. If however you were infected with smallpox, and you wanted to physically interact with others, that could be construed as sufficiently life-threatening, and could be defended against. Quarantining would be apropos.

That's laughable. We spend 50 years eradicating smallpox virus and you want to have vials of it freely available because there is no way that someone would abuse that is there? Who could ever imagine someone using it to teach his ex-girlfriend a lesson? Just because people with AIDS deliberately infect lovers doesn't mean they'd also use smallpox. Or does it?

Do you actually believe the stuff you are posting now or are you being obtuse for the fun of it?

Smallpox isn't the same threat model as global warming. We can afford to do an imperfect job on global warming for a few years (either with or without regulation), but one slip-up with smallpox screws everyone. Doing research without proper containment procedures is aggression - like pointing a loaded gun at our heads while you clean the trigger.

I don't have any philosophers to back me up, but I'd probably pay towards a bounty to incinerate Frederic's hypothetical specimen, property rights be damned. Maybe I'll eat those words soon enough. ;D

Smallpox isn't the same threat model as global warming. We can afford to do an imperfect job on global warming for a few years (either with or without regulation), but one slip-up with smallpox screws everyone. Doing research without proper containment procedures is aggression - like pointing a loaded gun at our heads while you clean the trigger.

I don't have any philosophers to back me up, but I'd probably pay towards a bounty to incinerate Frederic's hypothetical specimen, property rights be damned. Maybe I'll eat those words soon enough. ;D

Agreed. Its an incredible arrogance on his part that he assumes it's OK for you to risk dying a horrible death covered in boils just so he can say "I have created a right for all and sundry to carry a smallpox vial - rejoice in my liberty."

Fred you either have not thought this through or you are delusional. Have you any idea what a nasty death you want people to risk?

Smallpox isn't the same threat model as global warming. We can afford to do an imperfect job on global warming for a few years (either with or without regulation), but one slip-up with smallpox screws everyone. Doing research without proper containment procedures is aggression - like pointing a loaded gun at our heads while you clean the trigger.

I don't have any philosophers to back me up, but I'd probably pay towards a bounty to incinerate Frederic's hypothetical specimen, property rights be damned. Maybe I'll eat those words soon enough. ;D

I like the comment about pointing a loaded gun while cleaning the trigger. That's an interesting theory. The real question is can you bridge the gap between intent to do harm and ignorant accidental potential harm?

Of course, it would seem reasonably actionable, assuming your bounty request was justified, to incinerate anybody's specimen regardless if a government facility owned it or I owned it. If you feel threatened, you're suggesting it doesn't really matter who has possession. I'm trying to take a fair, equitable and lawful stance regarding your concerns. Is that correct?

Smallpox isn't the same threat model as global warming. We can afford to do an imperfect job on global warming for a few years (either with or without regulation), but one slip-up with smallpox screws everyone. Doing research without proper containment procedures is aggression - like pointing a loaded gun at our heads while you clean the trigger.

I don't have any philosophers to back me up, but I'd probably pay towards a bounty to incinerate Frederic's hypothetical specimen, property rights be damned. Maybe I'll eat those words soon enough. ;D

I like the comment about pointing a loaded gun while cleaning the trigger. That's an interesting theory. The real question is can you bridge the gap between intent to do harm and ignorant accidental potential harm?

Of course, it would seem reasonably actionable, assuming your bounty request was justified, to incinerate anybody's specimen regardless if a government facility owned it or I owned it. If you feel threatened, you're suggesting it doesn't really matter who has possession. I'm trying to take a fair and equitable stance regarding your concerns. Is that correct?

No. By the time everyone has possession, its too late. At that point, its guaranteed that smallpox will recur and we have to die for your "right to own a smallpox virus"

No. By the time everyone has possession, its too late. At that point, its guaranteed that smallpox will recur and we have to die for your "right to own a smallpox virus"

And yet there are many a sample of smallpox owned by various individuals all over the world. I'm not dead yet. I don't feel particularly threatened either. Your possession argument is getting thinner and thinner by the minute.

No. By the time everyone has possession, its too late. At that point, its guaranteed that smallpox will recur and we have to die for your "right to own a smallpox virus"

And yet there are many a sample of smallpox owned by various individuals all over the world. I'm not dead yet. I don't feel particularly threatened either. Your possession argument is getting thinner and thinner by the minute.

I don't have personal verifiable proof. Some research labs had samples up until 2002. There may not be any now. It has been proved that the virus could be synthesized from cow pox. Given enough technology, I'm sure it's possible to recreate it. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, however.

I don't have personal verifiable proof. Some research labs had samples up until 2002. There may not be any now. It has been proved that the virus could be synthesized from cow pox. Given enough technology, I'm sure it's possible to recreate it. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, however.

Hmmm. That would seem to contradict your suggestion that there are "many" samples knocking about.

Please, if you believe what you say, do a little googling, Get back to me with the precise number. It will take you less than a minute.

Hmmm. That would seem to contradict your suggestion that there are "many" samples knocking about.

Please, if you believe what you say, do a little googling, Get back to me with the precise number. It will take you less than a minute.

I'll concede on the veracity of the number. I personally don't think the number is relevant to our argument. So while I might be numerically inaccurate, it does not follow that my entire premise is wrong. But whatever, the number is of little concern to me. I don't want to google it; and if you want to terminate our discussion because of it, I'm fine with that too.

Hmmm. That would seem to contradict your suggestion that there are "many" samples knocking about.

Please, if you believe what you say, do a little googling, Get back to me with the precise number. It will take you less than a minute.

I'll concede on the veracity of the number. I personally don't think the number is relevant to our argument. So while I might be numerically inaccurate, it does not follow that my entire premise is wrong. But whatever, the number is of little concern to me. I don't want to google it; and if you want to terminate our discussion because of it, I'm fine with that too.

Actually it does mean your entire premise is wrong. Right now, the debate is whether to destroy the remaining samples and thus ridding humanity of this curse forever.

But you? No. You want every family to have a right to have their own vial of smallpox.

Please; I am looking for a rational argument to engage with and this shite is the what you come up with? Either you have an idea for a better system in which case you offer it. Or you don't in which case you shut up.

Actually it does mean your entire premise is wrong. Right now, the debate is whether to destroy the remaining samples and thus ridding humanity of this curse forever.

But you? No. You want every family to have a right to have their own vial of smallpox.

Please; I am looking for a rational argument to engage with and this shite is the what you come up with? Either you have an idea for a better system in which case you offer it. Or you don't in which case you shut up.

I'm waiting.

I'm fine with eradicating the remaining samples of smallpox as long as its your sample you want to destroy. I for one would incinerate my sample of smallpox (if I had any) as I think owning such things serves little or any purpose of mine, at the moment.

I'm not a chemist or biologist, so I have no need of such things; and knowing that owning such things could bring accidental harm to others, I wouldn't want to be responsible for that possibility. But that's just me. Other people have their own reasoning. To each his own.

Actually it does mean your entire premise is wrong. Right now, the debate is whether to destroy the remaining samples and thus ridding humanity of this curse forever.

But you? No. You want every family to have a right to have their own vial of smallpox.

Please; I am looking for a rational argument to engage with and this shite is the what you come up with? Either you have an idea for a better system in which case you offer it. Or you don't in which case you shut up.

I'm waiting.

I'm fine with eradicating the remaining samples of smallpox as long as its your sample you want to destroy. I for one would incinerate my sample of smallpox (if I had any) as I think owning such things serves little or any purpose of mine, at the moment.

I'm not a chemist or biologist, so I have no need of such things; and knowing that owning such things could bring accidental harm to others, I wouldn't want to be responsible for that possibility. But that's just me. Other people have their own reasoning. To each his own.

No. You are being obtuse or contrary. We have spent 2 generations eraricating smallpox and you seriously think you can come along and invent a right to a small pox virus that means we have to accept it can spread again. Who do you think you are? I'm not religious but even God accepts that we can eradicate disease. But not Fred; Fred wants to preserve his liberty to own the smallpox virus.

You position could be called absurd but Camus and 1000 existentialists would be libelled.

Fred; please please please give us a rational reason to listen to your ideas. So far, all I am seeing is childish "I wanna do what I wanna do" arguments. If that's all you have got, fine. But if you have some better reason for preserving smallpox, please, I am waiting.

No. You are being obtuse or contrary. We have spent 2 generations eraricating smallpox and you seriously think you can come along and invent a right to a small pox virus that means we have to accept it can spread again. Who do you think you are? I'm not religious but even God accepts that we can eradicate disease. But not Fred; Fred wants to preserve his liberty to own the smallpox virus.

You position could be called absurd but Camus and 1000 existentialists would be libelled.

Fred; please please please give us a rational reason to listen to your ideas. So far, all I am seeing is childish "I wanna do what I wanna do" arguments. If that's all you have got, fine. But if you have some better reason for preserving smallpox, please, I am waiting.

No. You are being obtuse or contrary. We have spent 2 generations eraricating smallpox and you seriously think you can come along and invent a right to a small pox virus that means we have to accept it can spread again. Who do you think you are? I'm not religious but even God accepts that we can eradicate disease. But not Fred; Fred wants to preserve his liberty to own the smallpox virus.

You position could be called absurd but Camus and 1000 existentialists would be libelled.

Fred; please please please give us a rational reason to listen to your ideas. So far, all I am seeing is childish "I wanna do what I wanna do" arguments. If that's all you have got, fine. But if you have some better reason for preserving smallpox, please, I am waiting.

Research.

What every family has its own vial of smallpox for research? That's what every factory worker and waitress needs? Is that your way of saying you can't think of a rational argument?

What every family has its own vial of smallpox for research? That's what every factory worker and waitress needs? Is that your way of saying you can't think of a rational argument?

No, not everybody cares about smallpox research, anymore than they care about recycling research, or research in general. Just because everybody has an infinite number of rights, are they willing to exercise any or a portion of any of them, at any particular time, or at all for that matter.

Does everybody have to provide a rational reason for why they have what they have? And to whom do they answer for these things they own? And why should they believe that these persons are any better at knowing what to do with their stuff than the owner does? Who are these masters we must subject ourselves to?

No. You are being obtuse or contrary. We have spent 2 generations eraricating smallpox and you seriously think you can come along and invent a right to a small pox virus that means we have to accept it can spread again. Who do you think you are? I'm not religious but even God accepts that we can eradicate disease. But not Fred; Fred wants to preserve his liberty to own the smallpox virus.

You position could be called absurd but Camus and 1000 existentialists would be libelled.

Fred; please please please give us a rational reason to listen to your ideas. So far, all I am seeing is childish "I wanna do what I wanna do" arguments. If that's all you have got, fine. But if you have some better reason for preserving smallpox, please, I am waiting.

Research.

I'm sure I recommended Edward O. Wilson's book to you. It's funny you say research. Edward O. Wilson supports, as I do, the preservation of species as best as we are able, because of all the wonderful things we have yet to learn from each and every one of those species - stuff like biological mechanisms, community behavior, medicinal breakthroughs, etc. There are millions of species out there worth learning from in our future, if we'd make an effort to save them. The one organism that Edward O. Wilson said that he saw no reason to preserve was small pox.

Funny how your political stance is pretty much diametrically opposite his. Do you think you're wiser than he is?

I like the comment about pointing a loaded gun while cleaning the trigger. That's an interesting theory. The real question is can you bridge the gap between intent to do harm and ignorant accidental potential harm?

Of course, it would seem reasonably actionable, assuming your bounty request was justified, to incinerate anybody's specimen regardless if a government facility owned it or I owned it. If you feel threatened, you're suggesting it doesn't really matter who has possession. I'm trying to take a fair, equitable and lawful stance regarding your concerns. Is that correct?

Correct. I don't care WHO is handling smallpox unsafely. However, I don't consider ignorance of the social norm to be any more excuse than ignorance of the law. If someone is going to mess around with Smallpox, they have a responsibility to inform themselves of how to properly contain it. Hopefully we would start with an angry email, but if I'm sure they've had their chance, I side with the angry mob.

I can't see how we would get past the angry mob stage, so every family owning Smallpox is a little too bizarre for me to imagine.

If I can feebly relate this to the topic: driving around unaware of the damage your pollution causes does not excuse it. Neither does denying that damage. I hold the ignorant morally accountable lest I encourage ignorance. I'm arguing for consequentialism: if ignorant accidental potential harm has the same consequences as wilful potential harm, they are morally equivalent.

But please correct me if this sounds wrong, I don't have much confidence in this reasoning.

I like the comment about pointing a loaded gun while cleaning the trigger. That's an interesting theory. The real question is can you bridge the gap between intent to do harm and ignorant accidental potential harm?

Of course, it would seem reasonably actionable, assuming your bounty request was justified, to incinerate anybody's specimen regardless if a government facility owned it or I owned it. If you feel threatened, you're suggesting it doesn't really matter who has possession. I'm trying to take a fair, equitable and lawful stance regarding your concerns. Is that correct?

Correct. I don't care WHO is handling smallpox unsafely. However, I don't consider ignorance of the social norm to be any more excuse than ignorance of the law. If someone is going to mess around with Smallpox, they have a responsibility to inform themselves of how to properly contain it. Hopefully we would start with an angry email, but if I'm sure they've had their chance, I side with the angry mob.

I can't see how we would get past the angry mob stage, so every family owning Smallpox is a little too bizarre for me to imagine.

If I can feebly relate this to the topic: driving around unaware of the damage your pollution causes does not excuse it. Neither does denying that damage. I hold the ignorant morally accountable lest I encourage ignorance. I'm arguing for consequentialism: if ignorant accidental potential harm has the same consequences as wilful potential harm, they are morally equivalent.

But please correct me if this sounds wrong, I don't have much confidence in this reasoning.

I pretty much am in complete agreement with what you're saying. However, I recently made a rather lengthy reply to one of your posts, and perhaps it was because I misunderstood. Have you read it? Here is the post:

I read it and understand your point, but I can't say I agree or disagree with your course of action. The problem might just be that we don't raise enough money to save these species, not that we need to start kicking down doors because it's cheaper. I didn't reply because you gave me a lot to think about.

I read it and understand your point, but I can't say I agree or disagree with your course of action. The problem might just be that we don't raise enough money to save these species, not that we need to start kicking down doors because it's cheaper. I didn't reply because you gave me a lot to think about.

I'm not sure I proposed a specific and singular course of action, especially one that involves kicking down doors. Mostly, I'm presenting thought provoking information, partially in the form of questions, to get you thinking. The subject matter of some of those questions related to the why of a discrepancy between western slope Sierra Nevada amphibian extinctions vs. eastern slope Sierra Nevada extinctions, the Sumatran Rhino and how unregulated capitalism accelerates extinction, wolves and water quality, the informational content in a world full of biodiversity vs. a world stripped of biodiversity, edge effects and ecosystem fragmentation, how the economy has changed what the limiting factors are in the global fish haul, and the overkill hypothesis. I'm more than willing to discuss any of those.

Three species have died a day on this planet since its early inception, independent of man's existence. One can hardly judge man's industrious nature as completely harmful just by a few changes done by our species. It's not to say other species can't cause just as much change to the environment.

I suggest we don't be so arrogant in our influence as a species. We will affect things but change isn't always a negative force against the world. Sometimes it just is.

Three species have died a day on this planet since its early inception, independent of man's existence. One can hardly judge man's industrious nature as completely harmful just by a few changes done by our species. It's not to say other species can cause just as much change to the environment.

I appreciate your input when it isn't devoid of thoughtful content. This isn't one of those times. The offending statement:

Are you familiar with deforestation and the effects it has? Are you familiar with the extent of deforestation that has occurred on this planet in the past several hundred years? Are you familiar with the megafauna that existed in New Zealand, Australia, the South Pacific Islands, North America and Europe prior to man's arrival? Are you familiar with the value of biodiversity, or is that just a term you hear thrown around usually coincident with conservation? Are you someone who likes to mostly argue monetary policy, yet fancies himself knowledgeable enough to address the issues of biodiversity?

I am ignorant of environmental science, yes. Frankly, I feel little can be done. If there is true damage being done to our planet that will affect our prospects as a species, I don't know if our current governments can quell any further damage. Corporate interest has control of most governments and I am sure they will have their way unless environmental damage will impact their own self-interest.

I am ignorant of environmental science, yes. Frankly, I feel little can be done. If there is true damage being done to our planet that will affect our prospects as a species, I don't know if our current governments can quell any further damage. Corporate interest has control of most governments and I am sure they will have their way unless environmental damage will impact their own self-interest.

I agree with most of this statement. I contend that our best course of action at this point is through education and awareness, so that policy (or whatever governmental or societal forces are available) factors in all the ramifications of mankind's footprint, and prevents observations made thus far from being downplayed or squashed.

That which I disagree with is the notion that little can be done. That simply isn't true.

I am ignorant of environmental science, yes. Frankly, I feel little can be done. If there is true damage being done to our planet that will affect our prospects as a species, I don't know if our current governments can quell any further damage. Corporate interest has control of most governments and I am sure they will have their way unless environmental damage will impact their own self-interest.

Once a critical mass of people is convinced that there is a real problem and that there is a realistic solution, things get fixed very fast. In the UK, forests have been allowed to regenerate over the last century and thousands of years of deforestation is being reversed. In the US, the Clean Air Act is an example of something that worked so successfully that people now don't remember that there was a problem in the first place. Whales are coming back from near extinction. All the evidence is that we, as a species, can do very well if we decide that something is worth doing.

The problem for global warming is that we need energy and there is enough coal to last 3000 years in known reserves. Its cheap and until we find something better, for example, nuclear fusion, we have to carry on using it.

The positive thing is that we have time. If hydrogen cars were to be made affordable (and that's a huge 'if') we know that within 25 years the entire global vehicle fleet would have migrated to the hydrogen model. And 25 years is a blink of an eye in terms of atmospheric science. Right now, there are a lot of projects to find a cheaper cleaner way to make energy. Until one of them succeeds, we will carry on with dirty old coal.

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking you to change his ways". M. Jackson.

Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously.

Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there.

I like the comment about pointing a loaded gun while cleaning the trigger. That's an interesting theory. The real question is can you bridge the gap between intent to do harm and ignorant accidental potential harm?

Of course, it would seem reasonably actionable, assuming your bounty request was justified, to incinerate anybody's specimen regardless if a government facility owned it or I owned it. If you feel threatened, you're suggesting it doesn't really matter who has possession. I'm trying to take a fair, equitable and lawful stance regarding your concerns. Is that correct?

You have to evaluate the risk and the hazard. If the vials are held by a qualified laboratory with sufficient checks and controls built into its operations, then there is no reason to feel threatened, though even then you might not see people queuing up to buy houses right next door. If it's held by your neighbour in his back shed you'd probably have to wonder exactly what he wants it for.

Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously.

Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there.

I don't mind giving incentives to people to change their ways. I've found that a combination of carrot and stick works very well. Actually it's the only thing that works.

Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously.

Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there.

I don't mind giving incentives to people to change their ways. I've found that a combination of carrot and stick works very well. Actually it's the only thing that works.

Then read this post of mine from this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg526491#msg526491

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking you to change his ways". M. Jackson.

Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously.

Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there.

I wasn't talking about change on an individual level. I was talking about systematic change, although that would have to transform into individual change eventually. :D

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking you to change his ways". M. Jackson.

Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously.

Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there.

I wasn't talking about change on an individual level. I was talking about systematic change, although that would have to transform into individual change eventually. :D

It was kind of a joke, implying that shooting (with a gun) something would fix it.Global Warming is something that humans cant control. I had a very intelligent rocket scientist explain to me one day how 95% of the green house gasses are water vapor from the ocean. And how the distance from the sun and the sun's hotspots/activity are more directly in relation to our earth's warming than our produced gasses. He was giving a short class to us and had plenty of mathematical evidence to back it up, like crazy cosmic math. Anyways the earths fluctuation of temperature is an inevitability that we must deal with and adapt to.

It was kind of a joke, implying that shooting (with a gun) something would fix it.Global Warming is something that humans cant control. I had a very intelligent rocket scientist explain to me one day how 95% of the green house gasses are water vapor from the ocean. And how the distance from the sun and the sun's hotspots/activity are more directly in relation to our earth's warming than our produced gasses. He was giving a short class to us and had plenty of mathematical evidence to back it up, like crazy cosmic math. Anyways the earths fluctuation of temperature is an inevitability that we must deal with and adapt to.

I could provide you with a wealth of reading material that would make things more clear to you, and likely change your opinion on the matter. Before getting too excited about your rocket scientist's presentation of the sun's activity, start with getting a solid understanding of the Maunder Minimum, Milankovitch cycles, and the ice albedo feedback loop. Plenty more to come, if you're interested.

Planning infrastructure to allow for more public transport is one thing, "cap and trade", tax undesirable things and lower tax on things desired (society wise), implement Euro5/Euro6 for vehicles.There's plenty to do.

Planning infrastructure to allow for more public transport is one thing, "cap and trade", tax undesirable things and lower tax on things desired (society wise), implement Euro5/Euro6 for vehicles.There's plenty to do.

I agree with this stuff. Most people choose to remain willfully ignorant of what is undesirable. Education is important. Unfortunately, it usually takes about a generation, as opposed to a couple of years.

From an environmental standpoint, no, that's probably not one of the undesirable things.

In some sense, it depends on the footprint left on the ground while engaging in making lots of money. Ground is used metaphorically here, meaning the ground literally, and the biosphere, people, everything.

Planning infrastructure to allow for more public transport is one thing, "cap and trade", tax undesirable things and lower tax on things desired (society wise), implement Euro5/Euro6 for vehicles.There's plenty to do.

Have you read Herman Daly?

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

This is good stuff too: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/wealth_of_nations/

This is good stuff too: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/wealth_of_nations/

Google "Herman Daly".

I've heard the name, but not read anything from him. Perhaps it's time to do so.

Yes. He's written a few books, some essays, and there are some videos of him where he discusses the finite resources of the Earth, and how economic theory must factor in those things to actually be meaningful.

Ah, yes. The big-oil backed sceptics believing that the 90+% of the worlds climate scientists are in some sort of global conspiracy to take over the world. Or something.Lapse in judgement by individual scientists, out of proportion wrong details and selective quoting goes a long way to establish a good conspiracy theory.

People that plan to steal massive amounts of money all over the world are more likely to be:

A. A huge group of unrelated scientists whose devious schemes for grant money know no bounds

OR

B. Companies that already make billions of dollars a year and will do anything to preserve those profits and make new ones with as little restraint or regulation as possible

My keen libertarian intellect tells me the answer is A. I mean, think about it: oil companies already have money! What do they need more for? Obviously it's the people who spent half their lives going to school so they could get $50k a year jobs who are trying to take over the world and not the companies that are already halfway there.

If this were the 1960s or '70s, I have no doubt libertarians would be implicating the Surgeon General and greedy doctors in a scheme to unfairly tar the honest scientists at RJ Reynolds who have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking cigarettes is the healthiest thing you'll ever do.

People that plan to steal massive amounts of money all over the world are more likely to be:

A. A huge group of unrelated scientists whose devious schemes for grant money know no bounds

OR

B. Companies that already make billions of dollars a year and will do anything to preserve those profits and make new ones with as little restraint or regulation as possible

My keen libertarian intellect tells me the answer is A. I mean, think about it: oil companies already have money! What do they need more for? Obviously it's the people who spent half their lives going to school so they could get $50k a year jobs who are trying to take over the world and not the companies that are already halfway there.

If this were the 1960s or '70s, I have no doubt libertarians would be implicating the Surgeon General and greedy doctors in a scheme to unfairly tar the honest scientists at RJ Reynolds who have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking cigarettes is the healthiest thing you'll ever do.

If this were the 1960s or '70s, I have no doubt libertarians would be implicating the Surgeon General and greedy doctors in a scheme to unfairly tar the honest scientists at RJ Reynolds who have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking cigarettes is the healthiest thing you'll ever do.

This is exactly why we need to create conditional climate futures to quantify the benefit of proposed climate legislation. Enough bullshit. If you're right, you win money from those who are wrong. Repeat it enough, and people who don't understand the science will shut up.

Sorry I thought conclusions on empirical scientific data were formed by reviewing multiple sources. My bad.

Apology accepted. My point is that there is SOOOOOOOO much bullshit available that anyone who hasn't already figured it out can just use Google and Wikipedia as a starting point. A global warming conspirator could just as easily drown us in links. Yes, use multiple sources, but get those from multiple sources too, not from some forum guy who is just trying to argue a point.

So? You're failing to grasp why and instead jumping on the above as evidence of no AGW. Let's examine the likely reason for why. Massive PR campaigns funded by big money to engage in deception have created a very frustrating environment for Global Warming science. As an example, witness the relentless bullshit posted by the likes of you from ridiculous sources. Given that, some scientists feel obliged to fight back with deceptive practices themselves just to level the playing field - if they also engaged in deceptive practices, does that logically follow that AGW is not real? No.

Tell me, are you so gullible that you fell for Oregon Institute Petition?

So? You're failing to grasp why and instead jumping on the above as evidence of no AGW. Let's examine the likely reason for why. Massive PR campaigns funded by big money to engage in deception have created a very frustrating environment for Global Warming science. As an example, witness the relentless bullshit posted by the likes of you from ridiculous sources. Given that, some scientists feel obliged to fight back with deceptive practices themselves just to level the playing field - if they also engaged in deceptive practices, does that logically follow that AGW is not real? No.

Tell me, are you so gullible that you fell for Oregon Institute Petition?

Poor TECSHARE suffers from a conspiracy delusion. If you tell him that a secret cabal invented the Pacific Ocean to stop decent Americans walking to Hawaii, he'd believe it.

Sorry I thought conclusions on empirical scientific data were formed by reviewing multiple sources. My bad.http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1f38D3hFI

I think this is the American problem of trying to be "fair and balanced" or what to call it. Not all sources are equal and should not be given equal weight. Besides, didn't even the Koch brothers study say that the climate change is probably man made? And I think the term "global warming" is now only used by those trying to discredit man made climate change.

To be fair though, we don't have all the facts and things could change in the future as our understanding increases, but that doesn't mean that we should sit idly and hope that all current knowledge is wrong. You act on the information currently available.

To be fair though, we don't have all the facts and things could change in the future as our understanding increases, but that doesn't mean that we should sit idly and hope that all current knowledge is wrong. You act on the information currently available.

The people arguing that this applies to climate change never seem to be willing to apply it to things like genetically-modified organisms or intentional attempts to engineer the global climate.

To be fair though, we don't have all the facts and things could change in the future as our understanding increases, but that doesn't mean that we should sit idly and hope that all current knowledge is wrong. You act on the information currently available.

The people arguing that this applies to climate change never seem to be willing to apply it to things like genetically-modified organisms or intentional attempts to engineer the global climate.

I'm saying that that argument won't persuade anyone because people always make it when it supports their position and always ignore it when it doesn't. The people who make that argument about global climate change don't accept it themselves about GMO or climate engineering. So why should anyone accept it when they make it about global climate change?

I'm saying that that argument won't persuade anyone because people always make it when it supports their position and always ignore it when it doesn't. The people who make that argument about global climate change don't accept it themselves about GMO or climate engineering. So why should anyone accept it when they make it about global climate change?

The argument that you have to go with what you know? Sounds strange because what else do you have. Then you would also probably want to apply the cautionary principle, at least for changes that would have a great impact.I personally don't have a problem with GMO as I see it solving a lot of problems, except for the self-killing plants which I think is a very dangerous idea. That mutation spread to other plants could have very bad effects.

The argument that you have to go with what you know? Sounds strange because what else do you have. Then you would also probably want to apply the cautionary principle, at least for changes that would have a great impact.

Yeah, see there's the problem. Let's take, for example, global warming and let's assume that AGW isn't established. (The argument works the same for other things such as GMO and climate engineering, but I'll use AGW.)

Does the cautionary principle work this way: "We're not sure humans are responsible for global warming. But trying to restrict our CO2 output will definitely harm our economy and likely cause a reduction in our ability to produce food. It will raise the cost of energy, causing some people to freeze to death. The cautionary principle says we shouldn't restrict CO2 output."

Or does it work this way: "We're not sure humans are responsible for global warming. But they might be. The cautionary principle says we had better reduce our CO2 output so that we don't risk causing massive damage to our planet."

What happens is that people always raise these arguments to support the conclusions they've accepted for other reasons. Nobody is actually swayed by them. They're basically window dressing. These are issues where both sides claim great impact and claim that the cautionary principle and the lack of complete knowledge justifies the conclusion they wanted in the first place for completely different, and unrelated reasons.

You have to address the real reasons people reach the conclusions they reach. If the evidence is not strong enough to compel either conclusion, people will generally argue for the conclusion that benefits them. And then it's not a scientific argument, it's over who wins and who loses.

The argument that you have to go with what you know? Sounds strange because what else do you have. Then you would also probably want to apply the cautionary principle, at least for changes that would have a great impact.

Yeah, see there's the problem. Let's take, for example, global warming and let's assume that AGW isn't established. (The argument works the same for other things such as GMO and climate engineering, but I'll use AGW.)

Does the cautionary principle work this way: "We're not sure humans are responsible for global warming. But trying to restrict our CO2 output will definitely harm our economy and likely cause a reduction in our ability to produce food. It will raise the cost of energy, causing some people to freeze to death. The cautionary principle says we shouldn't restrict CO2 output."

Or does it work this way: "We're not sure humans are responsible for global warming. But they might be. The cautionary principle says we had better reduce our CO2 output so that we don't risk causing massive damage to our planet."

What happens is that people always raise these arguments to support the conclusions they've accepted for other reasons. Nobody is actually swayed by them. They're basically window dressing. These are issues where both sides claim great impact and claim that the cautionary principle and the lack of complete knowledge justifies the conclusion they wanted in the first place for completely different, and unrelated reasons.

You have to address the real reasons people reach the conclusions they reach. If the evidence is not strong enough to compel either conclusion, people will generally argue for the conclusion that benefits them. And then it's not a scientific argument, it's over who wins and who loses.

I'd say it can work both ways. Currently virtually everyone who knows anything about climate change agrees that it is a problem, then the cautionary principle dictates that we should try to limit CO2. If our knowledge changes, or the situation changes, then the same principle can dictate the direct opposite. It all comes down to our body of knowledge at that specific time.

I'd say it can work both ways. Currently virtually everyone who knows anything about climate change agrees that it is a problem, then the cautionary principle dictates that we should try to limit CO2. If our knowledge changes, or the situation changes, then the same principle can dictate the direct opposite. It all comes down to our body of knowledge at that specific time.

If you state the conclusion at a high enough level of generality then everyone can agree. Yes, all other things being equal, let's prefer a solution that releases less CO2 to one that releases more. But, of course, that's not where the issue is. The issue is how much pain and sacrifice is justified to reduce CO2 by some particular amount and who will suffer the pain and make the sacrifice.

What's funny to me is that the very same people who are arguing for massive changes to reduce CO2 output are vehemently opposed to any other form of climate engineering. They're arguing for the biggest such attempt of them all, with massive, certain affects on human existence.

I'd say it can work both ways. Currently virtually everyone who knows anything about climate change agrees that it is a problem, then the cautionary principle dictates that we should try to limit CO2. If our knowledge changes, or the situation changes, then the same principle can dictate the direct opposite. It all comes down to our body of knowledge at that specific time.

If you state the conclusion at a high enough level of generality then everyone can agree. Yes, all other things being equal, let's prefer a solution that releases less CO2 to one that releases more. But, of course, that's not where the issue is. The issue is how much pain and sacrifice is justified to reduce CO2 by some particular amount and who will suffer the pain and make the sacrifice.

What's funny to me is that the very same people who are arguing for massive changes to reduce CO2 output are vehemently opposed to any other form of climate engineering. They're arguing for the biggest such attempt of them all, with massive, certain affects on human existence.

Agreed. There will have to be sacrifices. There always are in any choice we make. Who should make them? Probably those who have enjoyed the benefits the longest. I think it would be hard to convince anyone that the richest are those who should contribute the least. How much sacrifices we have to do? I'm sure there's a sweet spot somewhere where you do the most amount of good for the least amount of pain. I don't have the answer though.

I don't know what climate engineering you're talking about so I can't really comment on it. We've done some really stupid shit before so you should probably be very sure of what you're doing before doing it. Mao's sparrow killing idea did solve the problem of the birds eating the seeds, but in turn generated a much bigger problem. Let's not do something like that on a global scale please.

Most of the discussion about global warming are about CO2-emissions,but not about the reason for it: We all spend too much resources, and we spend them in an ineffizient way.

We know a mechansim, which forces us to do things efficiently: markets.

Why don't they work against wasting resources like oil, coal, water, electricity ...

A lot of important things have no price, that's why they don't cause costs, and so nobody optimizes them.Which costs are caused by the air-pollution in the US: I read today 184 billion dollars a year. Just a study of Yale, not real economy. But there are costs, when people have to go to the hospital because of it, or the reduced crops of farmers.

Which costs are caused, when the US buys oil from Equatorial Guinea?

Which costs are caused, when kids in asia are producing my clothes?

In a really libertarian society it's quite complicate to cope with it. Normally these systems tend to melt down, when the "not payed costs" get to high.In a society with a government and judges it would be easier, if the community wants it.

For me the solution has to be: Pollution, wasting of resources has to have cost/consequences. There are some, ...Till now it's quite easy to talk about it.

Most of the discussion about global warming are about CO2-emissions,but not about the reason for it: We all spend too much resources, and we spend them in an ineffizient way.

We know a mechansim, which forces us to do things efficiently: markets.

Why don't they work against wasting resources like oil, coal, water, electricity ...

A lot of important things have no price, that's why they don't cause costs, and so nobody optimizes them.Which costs are caused by the air-pollution in the US: I read today 184 billion dollars a year. Just a study of Yale, not real economy. But there are costs, when people have to go to the hospital because of it, or the reduced crops of farmers.

Which costs are caused, when the US buys oil from Equatorial Guinea?

Which costs are caused, when kids in asia are producing my clothes?

In a really libertarian society it's quite complicate to cope with it. Normally these systems tend to melt down, when the "not payed costs" get to high.In a society with a government and judges it would be easier, if the community wants it.

For me the solution has to be: Pollution, wasting of resources has to have cost/consequences. There are some, ...Till now it's quite easy to talk about it.

There is always an excuse to help the economy and not the people.

So your libertarian solution to CO2 emissions would be "cap and trade"? That puts a price on pollution. If that's a solution, then how would a libertarian enforce it?

Most of the discussion about global warming are about CO2-emissions,but not about the reason for it: We all spend too much resources, and we spend them in an ineffizient way.

...snip...

That's not really correct. Fossil fuels are the biomass of past ages. When we burn them, that carbon is released. Currently we release 400 years of biomass every year. The issue is not efficiency - its values. What value do we place on the environment our grandchildren will live in and can we get a market to reflect that value?

The answer would seem to be that we don't really care that much about the environment our grandchildren will live in and thus it has no market value.

A real example:In Japan every year experts are checking which electronic products are the least consuming ones. They best ones are the standard for the next year. And after some years (2 or so), no product less than this standard are allowed. No costs, just better products. This can be applied for a lot of products (cars for example).

Just ideas:

Every year/month/week there is a vote how much a kilometre on the street is. Every car-driver has to pay for it. The revenue is divided and payed to all voters.

An "exchange" for carbon-licences:When you want to use a carbon-containing resource (oil, coal, wood, ...) you have to buy a license for it. Anyone who produces electricity or has trees is allowed to "mine" licenses following defined rules, and trade it on a stock-exchange.

Every company has to explain, how the product was produced. Which steps, from whom, where, ....If a fault in the chain is found by anyone, rules like for cigarette-manufactures are applied: No commercial, no sponsoring, warnings...

Companies have to find a rating-agency, which controls the competitors.The results of the agencies have to be public and handed out when ever you are buying a product. If not, all products in the shop are free.

There are platforms for p2p-financing of improvement-projects. For every liter of oil, which is bought, you have to decide, which project is financed and how much you are paying (at least 2%? of the price). The retailer has to double the amount.

That's not really correct. Fossil fuels are the biomass of past ages. When we burn them, that carbon is released. Currently we release 400 years of biomass every year. The issue is not efficiency - its values. What value do we place on the environment our grandchildren will live in and can we get a market to reflect that value?

The answer would seem to be that we don't really care that much about the environment our grandchildren will live in and thus it has no market value.

A lot of people think in the other direction. "I invest values now (making a debt), so my children and grandchildren will have a better live."And I don't think, that most of the people don't have the feeling, that burning oil causes a "debt". We know that a technology can be substituted by another one. So, why not using oil. Our grandchildren will use something else.

That's not really correct. Fossil fuels are the biomass of past ages. When we burn them, that carbon is released. Currently we release 400 years of biomass every year. The issue is not efficiency - its values. What value do we place on the environment our grandchildren will live in and can we get a market to reflect that value?

The answer would seem to be that we don't really care that much about the environment our grandchildren will live in and thus it has no market value.

A lot of people think in the other direction. "I invest values now (making a debt), so my children and grandchildren will have a better live."And I don't think, that most of the people don't have the feeling, that burning oil causes a "debt". We know that a technology can be substituted by another one. So, why not using oil. Our grandchildren will use something else.

There is no substitute for carbon burning energy like coal, oil and gas. Its incredibly efficient and there is nothing even remotely close to consider as a substitute.

If something, for example nuclear fusion, could be got to work, oil would go out of use just like the horse drawn cart. But as it stands, we are utterly dependent on oil, coal and gas.

I don't know what climate engineering you're talking about so I can't really comment on it. We've done some really stupid shit before so you should probably be very sure of what you're doing before doing it. Mao's sparrow killing idea did solve the problem of the birds eating the seeds, but in turn generated a much bigger problem. Let's not do something like that on a global scale please.

Well that pretty much rules out every known strategy to combat global warming. Any attempt to restrict CO2 emissions would be climate engineering on a previously unheard of scale.

So? You're failing to grasp why and instead jumping on the above as evidence of no AGW. Let's examine the likely reason for why. Massive PR campaigns funded by big money to engage in deception have created a very frustrating environment for Global Warming science. As an example, witness the relentless bullshit posted by the likes of you from ridiculous sources. Given that, some scientists feel obliged to fight back with deceptive practices themselves just to level the playing field - if they also engaged in deceptive practices, does that logically follow that AGW is not real? No.

Tell me, are you so gullible that you fell for Oregon Institute Petition?

Poor TECSHARE suffers from a conspiracy delusion. If you tell him that a secret cabal invented the Pacific Ocean to stop decent Americans walking to Hawaii, he'd believe it.

You know the only other reason I come back here other than injecting some reality into this conversation - is to see how many childish insult fits you will spew out over a couple links. Certainly convinces me of your knowledge of the facts.

I find this kind of debate amusing. The question about whether or not global warming is caused by human industrial activities or not is an irrelevent one with regards to the outcomes. Either an increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming or it will not, that is the only detail that matters. So I ask the partisans on this thread the following questions...

Where did the carbon encased into fossil fuels come from? My understanding is that they originally came from dead plant material, but if so, where did the plants get it? The obvious answer is the air, but I'm open to speculation about alternatives. If the carbon came from the air, and we presently live on this planet, how could a closed carbon cycle with a finite amount of carbon in it possibly cause a catastrophic warming trend when it didn't do that when the plants were alive?

So far, I've posed this same quandry to a great many people that I have met, and the most credible alternative that I've yet been presented with came from a fundamentalist Christian conservative, who responded that the carbon wasn't in the air before because God created the Earth with the oil in the ground. I've literally seen dyed-in-the-wool tree huggers distort their own faces with the cognative dissonance.

I find this kind of debate amusing. The question about whether or not global warming is caused by human industrial activities or not is an irrelevent one with regards to the outcomes. Either an increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming or it will not, that is the only detail that matters. So I ask the partisans on this thread the following questions...

Where did the carbon encased into fossil fuels come from? My understanding is that they originally came from dead plant material, but if so, where did the plants get it? The obvious answer is the air, but I'm open to speculation about alternatives. If the carbon came from the air, and we presently live on this planet, how could a closed carbon cycle with a finite amount of carbon in it possibly cause a catastrophic warming trend when it didn't do that when the plants were alive?

So far, I've posed this same quandry to a great many people that I have met, and the most credible alternative that I've yet been presented with came from a fundamentalist Christian conservative, who responded that the carbon wasn't in the air before because God created the Earth with the oil in the ground. I've literally seen dyed-in-the-wool tree huggers distort their own faces with the cognative dissonance.

Are we assuming that at some point most of this carbon was in the atmosphere as CO2 at once? When was the last time this was the case? I had always thought most of it was contained within life, rocks, or oil since Earth was very young and didn't support multicellular life. Also, it's a closed carbon cycle, but not a closed CO2 cycle.

Where did the carbon encased into fossil fuels come from? My understanding is that they originally came from dead plant material, but if so, where did the plants get it? The obvious answer is the air, but I'm open to speculation about alternatives. If the carbon came from the air, and we presently live on this planet, how could a closed carbon cycle with a finite amount of carbon in it possibly cause a catastrophic warming trend when it didn't do that when the plants were alive?

I haven't scientifically analyzed this thought all the way through, but hundreds of millions of years ago during the time dinosaurs were living, the world was a lot hotter than it is now. As living matter pulled carbon out of the air, died, and turned into oil, the earth cooled.

"how could a closed carbon cycle with a finite amount of carbon in it possibly cause a catastrophic warming trend when it didn't do that when the plants were alive?" - It was hot in the past and it wasn't catastrophic then, but there was a very different profile of life on Earth than there is now. A heat level that was not catastrophic to dinosaurs could very well be catastrophic to humans.

Where did the carbon encased into fossil fuels come from? My understanding is that they originally came from dead plant material, but if so, where did the plants get it? The obvious answer is the air, but I'm open to speculation about alternatives. If the carbon came from the air, and we presently live on this planet, how could a closed carbon cycle with a finite amount of carbon in it possibly cause a catastrophic warming trend when it didn't do that when the plants were alive?

I haven't scientifically analyzed this thought all the way through, but hundreds of millions of years ago during the time dinosaurs were living, the world was a lot hotter than it is now. As living matter pulled carbon out of the air, died, and turned into oil, the earth cooled.

Okay, so what is to prevent the current presence of plants from doing the same in the future? What I'm asking is, under what basis is the assumption that carbon dioxide, even though it's a greenhouse gas, that CO2 doubling in the atmosphere is catastrophic for life? After all, as you have pointed out, before life evolved the Earth was far hotter until the magma on the surface cooled. Since the Earth is a closed system, the amount of oxygen present then is roughly the same as it is now, just like the amount of carbon dioxide. Under such conditions, it's practially impossible for any significant amount of the carbon to have been sequestered in any other form than CO2. So practically speaking, all of the carbon was part of the atmosphere in Earth's own history, and yet the Earth still cooled and life still came to dominate the surface of the Earth. If it's all a matter of speculation, then it's just as likely, if not moreso, that consuming all of the fossil fuels available to us (which wouldn't come close to putting all of the carbon back into the atmosphere) would result in a warmed climate only comparable to the Medivel Warm Period, which was far from catastrophic for humankind.

Quote

"how could a closed carbon cycle with a finite amount of carbon in it possibly cause a catastrophic warming trend when it didn't do that when the plants were alive?" - It was hot in the past and it wasn't catastrophic then, but there was a very different profile of life on Earth than there is now. A heat level that was not catastrophic to dinosaurs could very well be catastrophic to humans.

Could be, but based upon what? After all, by many respects humanity is far more resilient a species than any of the dinosaurs were; because our human intelligence permits us to develop clothing and housing that permits us to live in the harshest of conditions found on Earth if we desire to. There is an entire town in Australia that is underground in the outback to escape the heat, while there are semi-permanent encampments in Antartica for scientific research teams. The Vikings lived in areas of the world that didn't see a sunrise for 5 months at at time, much less a spring thaw. I contend that even a truly catastrophic degree of global warming, to the worst case scenario, isn't a threat to the majority of human life of this planet; althought it could be to a great many. I also contend that a much more mild degree of warming is more likely, on the order of 1 to 1.5 degree C, and would be a net improvement for human life on this planet. After all, such a more moderate form of climate warming would result in the warming of the majority of the land mass that remains uninhabitable on Earth; most of which is the Canadian Northern Territories, Siberia in Russia and Greenland. Greenland could literally be green, and the loss of coastal landmass would be neglible compared to that expansion of habitable space and agricultural landmass. And at less than +2 degrees C, even the worst case climate models don't result in a statisticly significant increase in major weather patterns. Nor would the change in climate become too hot near the equator, since the majority of the warming occurs in the higher latitudes. (This is largely because the greenhouse effect occurs from long wave infrared bouncing off of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, and the general scatter of reflected light spreads in all directs evenly; if the heat then returns to Earth at the equator, it's a net zero change in heat at the equator, but if it returns at the northern latitudes, it's a net gain for the northern latitudes while a net loss for the equator)

I find this kind of debate amusing. The question about whether or not global warming is caused by human industrial activities or not is an irrelevent one with regards to the outcomes. Either an increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming or it will not, that is the only detail that matters. So I ask the partisans on this thread the following questions...

Where did the carbon encased into fossil fuels come from? My understanding is that they originally came from dead plant material, but if so, where did the plants get it? The obvious answer is the air, but I'm open to speculation about alternatives. If the carbon came from the air, and we presently live on this planet, how could a closed carbon cycle with a finite amount of carbon in it possibly cause a catastrophic warming trend when it didn't do that when the plants were alive?

So far, I've posed this same quandry to a great many people that I have met, and the most credible alternative that I've yet been presented with came from a fundamentalist Christian conservative, who responded that the carbon wasn't in the air before because God created the Earth with the oil in the ground. I've literally seen dyed-in-the-wool tree huggers distort their own faces with the cognative dissonance.

Are we assuming that at some point most of this carbon was in the atmosphere as CO2 at once?

Generally, yes.

Quote

When was the last time this was the case?

I don't know, but it's irrelevent to the point. It was all there before life came to exist, (excluding that which was in the mantle, core and crust; but that's still there and will continue to be even if we burn every scrap of fossil fuels in the world, which is also not practially possible) so the concept that putting a portion of it back wince it came would result in a ELE is rediculous on it's face.

Quote

I had always thought most of it was contained within life, rocks, or oil since Earth was very young and didn't support multicellular life.

Yes, to a degree. But that's the point I'm trying to make. It was multicellular life that became oil, natural gas and coal. It is probable that a single celled form of life was important in the chemical changes that resulted in their present forms, but the vast majority of the carbon sequestration occured by multicellular plant life.

Are we assuming that at some point most of this carbon was in the atmosphere as CO2 at once?

Generally, yes.

That's a major flaw in your argument. The oil built up over millions of years. It's possible that oil deposits come and go, and if left untouched would vary within a stable range over time.

Ah, no. Then you don't understand the argument. At some point in the history of the planet, life did not exist and effectively all of the carbon locked up into fossil fuels was in the atmosphere; because elemental carbon is unstable and the presence of significantly more oxygen and a molten hot planet means that any hydrocarbons would have been burned up anyway. Logicly, plant life had to form in this environment in order for the carbon to be sequestered in the first place, so at one point all of the carbon present in fossil fuels was in the atmosphere first. That's the worst case scenario and yet we exist.

Carbon is not normally a gas. It only causes global warming in CO2 form, which requires a chemical change, no violation of conservation of elements.

Carbon is not normally elemental. It's either found in hydrocarbons or afixed to oxygen in some fashion. CO2 is carbon's most stable form, and since oxygen is significantly more likely to occur in nature than carbon, finding carbon in a natural state of CO2 is, in fact, quite normal.

Quote

Another species has actually done something just like this before.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_catastrophe

Not relevant. There has always been orders of magnitude more free oxygen available in the atmosphere, both before and after the rise of plantlife.

Let's assume for a moment that all this carbon was in the atmosphere. Not in any of these other places, like in water.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#Occurrence

Right now there is about 44 times as much carbon in water than in the air. The organism which first sequestered carbon, and still does most of it to this day, is microscopic. Not plants. This hypothetical high atmospheric carbon period would predate multicellular life by a billion years.

The period you describe is an alien world. Life as we know it simply did not exist. No plants, no animals, no fungi. You're making too many wild assumptions for me to even get into all of them.

Let's assume for a moment that all this carbon was in the atmosphere. Not in any of these other places, like in water.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#Occurrence

Right off the bat you undermine yourself. The carbon found in the ocean is dissolved CO2. It doesn't change a thing, for if enough of it were dissolved in to the oceans in order to permit plantlife to evolve, there is no reason that the same wouldn't occur now. Actually, it's more likely that the ocean can hold more CO2 today, because the ability of water to hold CO2 in a stable state goes down as the temp rises. This is one of the negative feedback cycles that the worst of the climate models depend upon.

Quote

Right now there is about 44 times as much carbon in water than in the air. The organism which first sequestered carbon, and still does most of it to this day, is microscopic. Not plants. This hypothetical high atmospheric carbon period would predate multicellular life by a billion years.

Now this is a good point. The first form of life to use photosysthisis, whatever you want to call them, were single celled and lived in water. I can't see how that alters the point, but feel free to expound on that.

Quote

The period you describe is an alien world. Life as we know it simply did not exist. No plants, no animals, no fungi. You're making too many wild assumptions for me to even get into all of them.

Yes, it would have been an alien world, but I'm not making assumptions. The premises that I base this thought experiment upon are accepted facts among just about anyone concerned about climate change. (Since most creationists are not concerned about climate change, I'm leaving them out of the conversation for simplicity).

The givens are...

The Earth is a closed system, thus there cannot be any more or less carbon or oxygen (nominally) than there was when life arose on this planet.

The Earth is assumed to have been molten hot, and cooled down over a very long period of time, primarily via net infrared radiation. (more heat was lost to the dark side of the planet than was gained on the Sun side)

There is, and therefore was, much more oxygen available in this hot environment than carbon; thus most of the carbon that was not already in a very stable molecule (such as minerals) would have been consumed by the oxygen. Therefore, any hydrocarbons (not stable in a hot environment in the presence of oxygen) that arose in any non-organic fashion would have been burned.

So I'm excluding the carbon sequestered before the dawn of life in, say, diamonds. If you can show that diamonds and the like can be burned, then this argument might not hold up.

So, generally speaking, all of the hydrocarbons that were sequestered in the Earth's crust before the Industrial Age led to humanity drawing them out to burn them and let them enter the atmosphere was already there at the dawn of life on this planet. Yet the Earth not only cooled to it's current state, it's been much colder. And it's been much warmer, also. Neither condition implies that a catastrophic level of climate change is possible, at least not catastrophic to humanity on the Earth as a whole. It does imply that there is a balancing mechanism at play that we don't fully understand, that permits these long cycles between a warm planet overall and an Ice Age. It does not imply that CO2 is the primary driver for these cycles, although it's almost certainly contributing. Keep in mind that any increase in the ambient CO2 in the air has been proven to promote plant growth, all other factors kept the same. So increases in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost certainly beneficial for plantlife. For that matter, so would a general increase in the climate temps along the higher latitudes.

So not only are you saying that all carbon was once in the air. You're also saying that returning our atmosphere to how it was a billion years before multicellular life WOULDN'T be a catastrophe, because at least microorganisms would probably survive.

So not only are you saying that all carbon was once in the air. You're also saying that returning our atmosphere to how it was a billion years before multicellular life WOULDN'T be a catastrophe, because at least microorganisms would probably survive.

He is saying that the link between carbon in the atmosphere and global temperatures is tenuous at best. We are in an interglacial - a short break in a massive ice age. The ice age will resume no matter what we do.

"how could a closed carbon cycle with a finite amount of carbon in it possibly cause a catastrophic warming trend when it didn't do that when the plants were alive?" - It was hot in the past and it wasn't catastrophic then, but there was a very different profile of life on Earth than there is now. A heat level that was not catastrophic to dinosaurs could very well be catastrophic to humans.

Exactly. Humans live where food grows. Human build ski resorts where it snows, dams where it floods, cities where it doesn't, and so on. It wouldn't take much climate change to impose a heavy, heavy cost on human life. If the arable land or drinkable water moves, wars will result. Of course, the one constant in global climate is change, so it's not so much a matter of if but of when.

So not only are you saying that all carbon was once in the air. You're also saying that returning our atmosphere to how it was a billion years before multicellular life WOULDN'T be a catastrophe, because at least microorganisms would probably survive.

He is saying that the link between carbon in the atmosphere and global temperatures is tenuous at best. We are in an interglacial - a short break in a massive ice age. The ice age will resume no matter what we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

That's a completely separate thing. It's actually a much more common idea, so I'm not disputing that here, people with some grasp of science still disagree on that one.

MoonShadow is saying that the worst-case scenario from global warming is a return to a pre CO2 sequestering atmosphere. That's a hell of a lot older - way way way older, than plants. Even if all CO2 was in the atmosphere then, it is not an example of an environment we can survive.

So not only are you saying that all carbon was once in the air. You're also saying that returning our atmosphere to how it was a billion years before multicellular life WOULDN'T be a catastrophe, because at least microorganisms would probably survive.

No, not quite. I'm saying that all of the carbon locked up into fossil fuels, and thus available to humanity to put into the atmosphere, was already there at one point before the plantlife that sequestered it put it into the ground. Therefore the burning of fossil fuels alone, even if it were possible for us to get all of it, could not logicly lead to a catastrophic 'negative feedback' of climate events, as is imagined by a great many of the models used by those who argue for dramatic geo-political changes to prevent such disasters. An Inconvient Truth is an example of taking such a dramtic view of the possible outcomes, without considering the fact that I present above. I can find no evidence that geologists disagree with the above statement, that the carbon sequestered into the Earth was put there by plantlife and thus was present in the atmosphere at the time. Feel free to prove me wrong on that point, or any other. But my point was, plantlife evolved in this environment, so it's logically inconsistant to present AGW worst case as being able to destroy life of this planet. I don't even think that it could destroy human life, although it could become difficult for the present number of human beings to live here. If AGW is correct (or maybe if it isn't, and we still overheat) the greater part of humanity is either going to have to leave or perish, but if the worst case is unlikely (which it is fairly unlikely in any case, by definition) and we get 2 degrees C or less of worldwide warming, that would actually be a net gain for humanity at large, due to the large expanses of agricultural land opened up in the Northern latitudes. People who live on Islands or right on the coast might be screwed, however.

MoonShadow is saying that the worst-case scenario from global warming is a return to a pre CO2 sequestering atmosphere. That's a hell of a lot older - way way way older, than plants. Even if all CO2 was in the atmosphere then, it is not an example of an environment we can survive.

Why not? The concentration of CO2 in the air would still be less than 700 parts per million in the atmosphere if we could consume it all, which we can't. Most of the climate models for the worst case are based on us being able to hit less than 500 parts per million. We wouldn't even notice that directly, although even trees would grow like weeds. The only way we notice is if the heat feedback cycles are true, but as I have pointed out, that carbon was in the air before and there is no evidence that the Earth was ever so hot in the past as to threaten life or suggest that a negative feedback exists. There have been trees growing on islands North of the North-West Passageway, which is north of Canada's Northern Territories and is presently permafrost. That alone implies that the Earth can be much warmer than it is presently and not be catastrophic.

MoonShadow is saying that the worst-case scenario from global warming is a return to a pre CO2 sequestering atmosphere. That's a hell of a lot older - way way way older, than plants. Even if all CO2 was in the atmosphere then, it is not an example of an environment we can survive.

Why not?

It's not an example of an environment we can survive because nothing remotely close to humans were alive last time it was like that. I'm not proving that life would be impossible - I'm rejecting your hypothesis as to why life (beyond microscopic) MUST be possible.

It's not an example of an environment we can survive because nothing remotely close to humans were alive last time it was like that. I'm not proving that life would be impossible - I'm rejecting your hypothesis as to why life (beyond microscopic) MUST be possible.

It's not an example of an environment we can survive because nothing remotely close to humans were alive last time it was like that. I'm not proving that life would be impossible - I'm rejecting your hypothesis as to why life (beyond microscopic) MUST be possible.

Assuming that chart is correct, and not just some made up bs, then that implies that the level of CO2 in the air before sequesteration was about 3K ppm, and that all of the fossil fuels were created during the Teritary. So relatively recently. Humanity might actually be able to notice 3K ppm directly, because we use the concentration of CO2 in our lungs and bloodstream to tell us when to exhale. A level so high might trigger the sensation of suffocation in some people. Regardless, if a CO2 feedback mechanism exists in nature, a level anywhere near 3K ppm would have destroyed all life; so obviously one cannot exist.

Assuming that chart is correct, and not just some made up bs, then that implies that the level of CO2 in the air before sequesteration was about 3K ppm, and that all of the fossil fuels were created during the Teritary.

That graph shows a peak of about 7000 ppm in the Cambrian, which was still a billion years after carbon sequestering began. How could the level of CO2 be higher in the Cambrian than before sequestering?

Assuming that chart is correct, and not just some made up bs, then that implies that the level of CO2 in the air before sequesteration was about 3K ppm, and that all of the fossil fuels were created during the Teritary.

That graph shows a peak of about 7000 ppm in the Cambrian, which was still a billion years after carbon sequestering began. How could the level of CO2 be higher in the Cambrian than before sequestering?

I meant, generally, with regard to fossil fuels. The drop from 7K in the Cambrian is likely due to the rise and spread of multicellular plantlife, which maintains a certain level of sequesterd carbon in the cycle of life.

That's funny, but not only do I have no corporate interest in the topic, I actually understand much of the underlying science. At the politcal level, particularly surrounding the UN, understanding of the science and thus the real risks are lacking. Of course, the real risks are beside the point, since the real goals of most of those political agents is to use the fear of an unknown (possible climate catastrophy) to consolidate political power at the UN level.

The best answer to what the real science says about the future of global climate is basicly "we don't really know yet".

The best answer to what the real science says about the future of global climate is basicly "we don't really know yet".

From my understanding it's more like "We have a clear indication that ..." meaning that while they don't really know everything since they're dealing with complex systems their current understanding points to bad things. Then you have the politicians who have to cry wolf to get anything done.

The best answer to what the real science says about the future of global climate is basicly "we don't really know yet".

From my understanding it's more like "We have a clear indication that ..." meaning that while they don't really know everything since they're dealing with complex systems their current understanding points to bad things. Then you have the politicians who have to cry wolf to get anything done.

There is a clear indication that the climate is trending warmer, and has been since the end of the 'little ice age'. There is also a clear indication that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is not a clear connection between the two. The environment is a very complex system and the concentration of CO2 a very small part of it. Both the climate and the level of atmospheric CO2 are in constant flux over millienia, but the CO2 concentration tends to be a lagging indicator; implying that the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere are an effect of a warming global climate, not a cause. Although it's certainly possible that CO2 is, itself, a feedback loop. There is no indication, nor any logical reason to assume, that even a tripling of the amount of carbon in the air would result in a catastrophic degree of climate change. Even a 4 degree global change would take at least a century to materialize.

There is a clear indication that the climate is trending warmer, and has been since the end of the 'little ice age'. There is also a clear indication that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is not a clear connection between the two. The environment is a very complex system and the concentration of CO2 a very small part of it. Both the climate and the level of atmospheric CO2 are in constant flux over millienia, but the CO2 concentration tends to be a lagging indicator; implying that the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere are an effect of a warming global climate, not a cause. Although it's certainly possible that CO2 is, itself, a feedback loop. There is no indication, nor any logical reason to assume, that even a tripling of the amount of carbon in the air would result in a catastrophic degree of climate change. Even a 4 degree global change would take at least a century to materialize.

The only references to this are publications that don't exactly have the highest academic credibility. Is there any serious research going into this? I have a feeling that most researchers are quite honest and if there was something going on we'd see more peer reviewed papers about it.

Does it really matter if it takes a century to materialize? You're not really that egocentric that you're willing to screw your children and grandchildren for the comfort of driving a SUV today, are you?

Does it really matter if it takes a century to materialize? You're not really that egocentric that you're willing to screw your children and grandchildren for the comfort of driving a SUV today, are you?

Yes. If it takes so long that our descendants can engineer their bodies by then, they might be glad we pulled out all the stops to allow them the chance to exist. Tolerating some pollution may enable some fantastic technological developments. Whether or not it's worth it is not my place to say.

I encourage destruction of this planet. I applaud the pollution of remaining potable water, breathable air and fertile terrain. That will only give us further incentive to leave this blue sphere and reach for the stars. Maybe, just maybe, it will be the ignition to get us to a post-scarcity situation. Humanity has already proven itself as a virus on a smaller scale. We might as well embrace the role to its fullest potential; to the rest of the universe and possibly beyond.

I encourage destruction of this planet. I applaud the pollution of remaining potable water, breathable air and fertile terrain. That will only give us further incentive to leave this blue sphere and reach for the stars. Maybe, just maybe, it will be the ignition to get us to a post-scarcity situation. Humanity has already proven itself as a virus on a smaller scale. We might as well embrace the role to its fullest potential; to the rest of the universe and possibly beyond.

Well Atlas, that certainly puts your opinions on the role of the state as part of a civilised society in context. If your objective is elimination of life on Earth as we move to a "post scarcity situation in the starts," or Heaven as my old Grannie called it, then clearly anything that impedes that goal will be against your ideology.

There is a clear indication that the climate is trending warmer, and has been since the end of the 'little ice age'. There is also a clear indication that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is not a clear connection between the two. The environment is a very complex system and the concentration of CO2 a very small part of it. Both the climate and the level of atmospheric CO2 are in constant flux over millienia, but the CO2 concentration tends to be a lagging indicator; implying that the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere are an effect of a warming global climate, not a cause. Although it's certainly possible that CO2 is, itself, a feedback loop. There is no indication, nor any logical reason to assume, that even a tripling of the amount of carbon in the air would result in a catastrophic degree of climate change. Even a 4 degree global change would take at least a century to materialize.

The only references to this are publications that don't exactly have the highest academic credibility. Is there any serious research going into this? I have a feeling that most researchers are quite honest and if there was something going on we'd see more peer reviewed papers about it.

This is pretty much what all the serious research and academic publications say, it's the media and the political class that turns these research papers into something that they are not. There are very few academics (in the fields that are relevent to the topic) that will state that either the Earth is not warming as a whole or that necessarily means that such warming will continue in the future. The exceptions are provablely biased by political ideologies. Honest scientists can't reliablely predict the weather 20 days from now, and they will be the frist to say that the long term climate models (all of them) are based upon many assumptions about how certain varirables affect the outcome or even what those variables' values are with any precision.

Quote

Does it really matter if it takes a century to materialize? You're not really that egocentric that you're willing to screw your children and grandchildren for the comfort of driving a SUV today, are you?

Yes, it does. If it takes three generations for the worst case scenario (+4 degrees C) that the models predict to occur, it can hardly be considered a catastrophe can it? IT's not like humanity ats a whole won't have time to adapt to a (potential) 1.2 meter high rise in the ocean's median level. Even the worst of the poor could walk away from such areas long before that. Nearly every sandy beach in the world would be under low tide, but that's only a catastrophe to sunbathers and surfers.

And I don't own an SUV. I've ridden a 21 speed bicycle to work 250+ days per year to work since May 2nd, 2008. I'm doing my part, but for my health and my checkbook. What are you doing?

This is pretty much what all the serious research and academic publications say, it's the media and the political class that turns these research papers into something that they are not. There are very few academics (in the fields that are relevent to the topic) that will state that either the Earth is not warming as a whole or that necessarily means that such warming will continue in the future. The exceptions are provablely biased by political ideologies. Honest scientists can't reliablely predict the weather 20 days from now, and they will be the frist to say that the long term climate models (all of them) are based upon many assumptions about how certain varirables affect the outcome or even what those variables' values are with any precision.

Yes, it does. If it takes three generations for the worst case scenario (+4 degrees C) that the models predict to occur, it can hardly be considered a catastrophe can it? IT's not like humanity ats a whole won't have time to adapt to a (potential) 1.2 meter high rise in the ocean's median level. Even the worst of the poor could walk away from such areas long before that. Nearly every sandy beach in the world would be under low tide, but that's only a catastrophe to sunbathers and surfers.

And I don't own an SUV. I've ridden a 21 speed bicycle to work 250+ days per year to work since May 2nd, 2008. I'm doing my part, but for my health and my checkbook. What are you doing?

Believe it or not but I was actually working in meteorology some 20 years ago. Back then we had rolling 3 week schedules that we refined each day. Obviously the predictions 3 weeks away was very rough, like saying that it would rain in the entire state of Connecticut, which obviously wasn't true, but we knew that it was going to rain around that time in that general area. I'm well aware of the assumptions that must be done and that things will change. That doesn't mean that we didn't have a model that was fairly good. The same applies to larger weather systems. The models aren't perfect but they aren't worthless either.Magazines like Nature or New Scientist are fairly respected publications and neither of them are sceptical of climate change, even though the do publish cock-ups by scientists when they're found. Are you saying that they too have a political agenda, and goes against good science to push it?

Rising sea level isn't the biggest threat in itself. I'm sure people will have time to get out of the way when the water is coming. Flooded farmland leading to food shortage, ecosystems out of balance and other things are more of a concern I think. That's not something I'd like to leave behind when I go.

I wasn't talking about you specifically. But I'm happy to hear that you're doing your part. So am I. Sadly I don't work close enough to ride my bike to work, but I do commute with public transport, among other things that reduce my footprint. I'm still far above a sustainable level if you look at the web-tests you can do however.

Magazines like Nature or New Scientist are fairly respected publications and neither of them are sceptical of climate change, even though the do publish cock-ups by scientists when they're found. Are you saying that they too have a political agenda, and goes against good science to push it?

Real scientists are always sceptics, but nor am I very sceptical that climate change exists. The climate is always changing. The part that is sceptical is the role of human activity in the matter. Is humanity to blame for the catastrophy that has been known as the 'Medieval Warm Period'? What about the 'Littile Ice Age'? As a professional meterologist, certainly you studied these historic periods of relatively rapid changes in worldwide climate? In either case, it took about a century to change at the inflection points. We're beyond a century since the dawn of the Industrial Age (age of oil), and the most credible of negative 'worst case' models take another century to rise global temps to a point that the poles actually do melt. The melting of said poles doesn't even necessarily imply a net negative impact upon humanity or life in general, since this also implies the associated expansion of agricultural land in the northern latitides, the increase in growing seasons in all lower latitudes and the productive increases that can be expected from increases in ambiant CO2 available to agricultural plantlife. That's not even considering the vast energy savings in winter heating among the entire population beyond the 75th parrallel. The official records concerning the MWP imply that we crossed the average global temps in 1990's, but last I checked wine vineyards are still not viable in Northern Britian like they were for 400 years during the MWP. If anyone is growing wine grapes in Scotland without a glasshouse and we still have economicly viable fossil fuels left, I might have something to worry about, but I doubt it. I've literally seen wealthy people buy lakefront property around the Great Lakes on the potential that global warming would make such areas more valuable for their grandchildren. There are always things that real people can do to mitigate the risks of change.

Quote

Rising sea level isn't the biggest threat in itself. I'm sure people will have time to get out of the way when the water is coming. Flooded farmland leading to food shortage, ecosystems out of balance and other things are more of a concern I think. That's not something I'd like to leave behind when I go.

Food shortages, as a result from climate change, isn't a credible threat. Far more likely is the rapid expansion of agriculture for the above noted reasons. Whoever tells you such things is trying to scare you, or are simply scared themselves. As a trained meterologist, I think that you know this is so on some deep, rational level. Food shortages in places where food is already difficult to grow, now that can get worse. Fresh water sources could become a real issue with an expanding population and expanding agricultureal base, since is already is (but not as a consequence of climate change, but poor resource management with an expanding population). This is, ironicly, one of the reasons that I choose to live in this city of Louisville, Kentucky. I live 26 feet over the top of one of the largest replenishing known in the US. I have both the legal, and pyisical, capability of driving a wellpoint in my own backyard if I choose to do so.

Quote

I wasn't talking about you specifically. But I'm happy to hear that you're doing your part. So am I. Sadly I don't work close enough to ride my bike to work,

Define 'close enough'. I live 8.5 miles form work.

Quote

but I do commute with public transport, among other things that reduce my footprint. I'm still far above a sustainable level if you look at the web-tests you can do however.

ironicly, public transport isn't normally going to reduce your carbon footprint by any non-neglible degree in most US cities. New York or LA, yes. Cincinnati or Indianapolis, no. The reason for this is because public transport must run whether or not you are using it, public transit's average ridership is too low to compete with a modern compact car. Such public transit might make you feel good about it, but it exists as a transit subsidy for the poor; and no other reason is historicly or scientificly accurate.

Magazines like Nature or New Scientist are fairly respected publications and neither of them are sceptical of climate change, even though the do publish cock-ups by scientists when they're found. Are you saying that they too have a political agenda, and goes against good science to push it?

Real scientists are always sceptics, but nor am I very sceptical that climate change exists. The climate is always changing. The part that is sceptical is the role of human activity in the matter. Is humanity to blame for the catastrophy that has been known as the 'Medieval Warm Period'? What about the 'Littile Ice Age'? As a professional meterologist, certainly you studied these historic periods of relatively rapid changes in worldwide climate? In either case, it took about a century to change at the inflection points. We're beyond a century since the dawn of the Industrial Age (age of oil), and the most credible of negative 'worst case' models take another century to rise global temps to a point that the poles actually do melt. The melting of said poles doesn't even necessarily imply a net negative impact upon humanity or life in general, since this also implies the associated expansion of agricultural land in the northern latitides, the increase in growing seasons in all lower latitudes and the productive increases that can be expected from increases in ambiant CO2 available to agricultural plantlife. That's not even considering the vast energy savings in winter heating among the entire population beyond the 75th parrallel. The official records concerning the MWP imply that we crossed the average global temps in 1990's, but last I checked wine vineyards are still not viable in Northern Britian like they were for 400 years during the MWP. If anyone is growing wine grapes in Scotland without a glasshouse and we still have economicly viable fossil fuels left, I might have something to worry about, but I doubt it. I've literally seen wealthy people buy lakefront property around the Great Lakes on the potential that global warming would make such areas more valuable for their grandchildren. There are always things that real people can do to mitigate the risks of change.

Quote

Rising sea level isn't the biggest threat in itself. I'm sure people will have time to get out of the way when the water is coming. Flooded farmland leading to food shortage, ecosystems out of balance and other things are more of a concern I think. That's not something I'd like to leave behind when I go.

Food shortages, as a result from climate change, isn't a credible threat. Far more likely is the rapid expansion of agriculture for the above noted reasons. Whoever tells you such things is trying to scare you, or are simply scared themselves. As a trained meterologist, I think that you know this is so on some deep, rational level. Food shortages in places where food is already difficult to grow, now that can get worse. Fresh water sources could become a real issue with an expanding population and expanding agricultureal base, since is already is (but not as a consequence of climate change, but poor resource management with an expanding population). This is, ironicly, one of the reasons that I choose to live in this city of Louisville, Kentucky. I live 26 feet over the top of one of the largest replenishing known in the US. I have both the legal, and pyisical, capability of driving a wellpoint in my own backyard if I choose to do so.

Quote

I wasn't talking about you specifically. But I'm happy to hear that you're doing your part. So am I. Sadly I don't work close enough to ride my bike to work,

Define 'close enough'. I live 8.5 miles form work.

Quote

but I do commute with public transport, among other things that reduce my footprint. I'm still far above a sustainable level if you look at the web-tests you can do however.

ironicly, public transport isn't normally going to reduce your carbon footprint by any non-neglible degree in most US cities. New York or LA, yes. Cincinnati or Indianapolis, no. The reason for this is because public transport must run whether or not you are using it, public transit's average ridership is too low to compete with a modern compact car. Such public transit might make you feel good about it, but it exists as a transit subsidy for the poor; and no other reason is historicly or scientificly accurate.

Sadly I'm not a meteorologist. My fields of expertise are elsewhere. I just happened to work there and got basic training in meteorology. I probably know more about weather prediction than most people, but that's about it. That said, I know of these periods you speak, although not in great detail. And certainly not enough to draw any sort of conclusions from those periods.

There's a lot of farmland close to sea level and while I agree that new land probably will open up to agriculture. Lots of very good soil is in the lowlands. New land isn't sure to have the same properties and could produce lower yield per area. But we're going into a bit too much detail here.

I have about 100km one way. It would take me well over 5hours by bike. I travel by bus and it's about 80% full, so I think this makes a difference since most of my fellow travellers would drive their own car if the bus wasn't there. And I can work on the bus too, so it's a double benefit for me. An extra hour of work each trip.

Yes, it really does matter. If it's a century off, we'll probably manage it all wrong if we try to manage it now. The longer we can wait to deal with the problem, the more prosperous we'll be when we deal with it and the better the technology we'll have to address it with. Also, the more science we'll know, so our chances of screwing it up will be lower. (Imagine if we invested tens of billions into electric cars and trillions into nuclear power in the 70s because we were told we only had 20 years of oil left.)

Quote

You're not really that egocentric that you're willing to screw your children and grandchildren for the comfort of driving a SUV today, are you?

The difference between this simplistic silliness and reality is why this kind of reasoning is complete nonsense. It's not about driving SUVs, it's about growing global economies so that we have the resources and understanding to deal with big problems the best way possible.

Every reduction in human population is one less ticket in the lottery for the next Einstein or Beethoven. The stakes are as high as they can be.

Yes, it really does matter. If it's a century off, we'll probably manage it all wrong if we try to manage it now. The longer we can wait to deal with the problem, the more prosperous we'll be when we deal with it and the better the technology we'll have to address it with. Also, the more science we'll know, so our chances of screwing it up will be lower. (Imagine if we invested tens of billions into electric cars and trillions into nuclear power in the 70s because we were told we only had 20 years of oil left.)

The difference between this simplistic silliness and reality is why this kind of reasoning is complete nonsense. It's not about driving SUVs, it's about growing global economies so that we have the resources and understanding to deal with big problems the best way possible.

Every reduction in human population is one less ticket in the lottery for the next Einstein or Beethoven. The stakes are as high as they can be.

There's an old truth saying that the longer you wait the more expensive and hard things will be to change. Wouldn't it have been great if we'd done that? Invested in electric cars, and nuclear? Then we would probably have an efficient electric car today, and knowledge about nuclear power unknown to us. Perhaps we would use thorium reactors? Perhaps something better?

I'm all for growing economies. I'm against waste. Be frugal when possible and use resources where it does good. You can achieve the same thing with a different type of car as you can with a SUV. You're just wasting resources by building and driving that. Not that SUVs are the main problem, but they illustrate a point.

I'm in total agreement with you about the population thing though. But I have one more thought about that. How do we make sure that the potential Einsteins/Beethovens are able to reach their full potential? How do we equalize the chance everyone gets when starting out their lives?

Yes, it really does matter. If it's a century off, we'll probably manage it all wrong if we try to manage it now. The longer we can wait to deal with the problem, the more prosperous we'll be when we deal with it and the better the technology we'll have to address it with. Also, the more science we'll know, so our chances of screwing it up will be lower. (Imagine if we invested tens of billions into electric cars and trillions into nuclear power in the 70s because we were told we only had 20 years of oil left.)

The difference between this simplistic silliness and reality is why this kind of reasoning is complete nonsense. It's not about driving SUVs, it's about growing global economies so that we have the resources and understanding to deal with big problems the best way possible.

Every reduction in human population is one less ticket in the lottery for the next Einstein or Beethoven. The stakes are as high as they can be.

There's an old truth saying that the longer you wait the more expensive and hard things will be to change. Wouldn't it have been great if we'd done that? Invested in electric cars, and nuclear? Then we would probably have an efficient electric car today, and knowledge about nuclear power unknown to us. Perhaps we would use thorium reactors? Perhaps something better?

the electric car was invented before the internal combustion engine driven car. The electric one lost due to real physical disadvantages and economic realities that persist to the present day. So your assumptions are demonstratablely wrong. We also know how to build thorium reactors, we just don't.

Quote

I'm all for growing economies. I'm against waste. Be frugal when possible and use resources where it does good. You can achieve the same thing with a different type of car as you can with a SUV. You're just wasting resources by building and driving that. Not that SUVs are the main problem, but they illustrate a point.

The SUV has a valid use case. It's not significantly different than a minivan, nor are they less efficient; and they can be used as a small truck as well.

Quote

I'm in total agreement with you about the population thing though. But I have one more thought about that. How do we make sure that the potential Einsteins/Beethovens are able to reach their full potential? How do we equalize the chance everyone gets when starting out their lives?

We can't. The best we can do is to present a level playing field and hope that the law of averages will permit these talented types to rise to their potential.

the electric car was invented before the internal combustion engine driven car. The electric one lost due to real physical disadvantages and economic realities that persist to the present day. So your assumptions are demonstratablely wrong. We also know how to build thorium reactors, we just don't.

The SUV has a valid use case. It's not significantly different than a minivan, nor are they less efficient; and they can be used as a small truck as well.

We can't. The best we can do is to present a level playing field and hope that the law of averages will permit these talented types to rise to their potential.

What economic realities are you talking about? The fact that you don't have to pay for your pollution? And physical disadvantages? Like in real physical hurdles that can't be overcome? Or problems to be solved?Yes, and why do we use uranium instead? To produce weapons. Sad but true. Thorium waste can't be refined to nuclear bombs so that line of research was killed. Depressing isn't it? Is that really the end of the line in nuclear research? Don't you think we could have gotten a bit further if we didn't focus most of our energy on burning oil?

Sure the SUV have valid uses. Is that how most of them are used? The idea of using 3 tonnes of steel to transport 70 kg of flesh is bloody stupid.

How do you present a level playing field? Education for everyone? Nutrition to help them develop their physical and mental strength? Who will pay for this?

the electric car was invented before the internal combustion engine driven car. The electric one lost due to real physical disadvantages and economic realities that persist to the present day. So your assumptions are demonstratablely wrong. We also know how to build thorium reactors, we just don't.

The SUV has a valid use case. It's not significantly different than a minivan, nor are they less efficient; and they can be used as a small truck as well.

We can't. The best we can do is to present a level playing field and hope that the law of averages will permit these talented types to rise to their potential.

What economic realities are you talking about? The fact that you don't have to pay for your pollution? And physical disadvantages?

Batteries are heavy, and include a huge 'sunk' energy cost in their production. They also don't last very long relative to the steel block combustion engine. They contain huge amounts of poisons that would contanimate any area that a major accident occurred. They are relatively slow, and have very limited ranges and long 'refueling' times. Even many 'green' leaning inventors have acknowleged the problems with electric transport, which is why the Revopower Wheel was invented. Pity it never made it to mass production, I would have bought one straight away. There is no substitute for the energy density of petrol.

Quote

Like in real physical hurdles that can't be overcome? Or problems to be solved?

Mostly matters of physics and economics, not matters of technology. Electric vehicles will become commonplace as soon as the economics of peak oil force the issue, and then people get accustomed to the particular inconviences that electric transport presents.

Quote

Yes, and why do we use uranium instead? To produce weapons. Sad but true. Thorium waste can't be refined to nuclear bombs so that line of research was killed. Depressing isn't it?

That is an accurate assessment.

Quote

Is that really the end of the line in nuclear research? Don't you think we could have gotten a bit further if we didn't focus most of our energy on burning oil?

Perhaps we could have, but again, there isn't a lot of further research to be done. Again, we know how to build thorium cycle reactors, and we did it fourty years ago, but we just don't. The infrastructure, as you noted, exists for the refinement and production of uranium fuel rods, because of the military's desire for plutonium. We no longer need any more of that, and really need a lot less than we have, but the infrastructure exists. So uranium fuel cycle reactors not only have a precedent, they have an economicly mature nationwide/worldwide supply chain. An equivilent supply chain for thorium reactors would have to be built up from scratch, which can be done if we had the political will, but it seems that no one but India has any such will.

Quote

Sure the SUV have valid uses. Is that how most of them are used? The idea of using 3 tonnes of steel to transport 70 kg of flesh is bloody stupid.

No contest there, but it's not really your's to decide.

Quote

How do you present a level playing field? Education for everyone? Nutrition to help them develop their physical and mental strength? Who will pay for this?

True equal rights under the "law" (common law or natural law, like how the term was intended when the framers spoke the term.) No special rights for historicly oppressed groups, no identity politics. As a parent, I am responsible for the quality of their education and their health care, and no one else gets to intervene in my decisions. (excepting, perhaps, the child)

There's an old truth saying that the longer you wait the more expensive and hard things will be to change.

Ironic, since the truth is the reverse.

Quote

Wouldn't it have been great if we'd done that? Invested in electric cars, and nuclear? Then we would probably have an efficient electric car today, and knowledge about nuclear power unknown to us. Perhaps we would use thorium reactors? Perhaps something better?

But that's not what would have happened. We'd have built dozens more crappy reactors like the ones at Fukushima. And the resources devoted to electric cars wouldn't have gone to developing the more sophisticated computers and basic research that is making *good* electric cars possible.

The reason we can design such great nuclear reactors and electric cars today is not because of all the research into electric cars and nuclear reactors we've done. It's because we have (or at least *had*) a prosperous economy with good basic research, so we can do *everything* better.

When these things will really work, the profit motive will direct money into them. If you have to push to get money into them, it's strong evidence you're trying to do it wrong. You don't know if solar is right. You don't know if hydrogen is right. You don't know if thorium is right. Central planning will always tend to move resources to less productive uses because the information to make the right decisions simply does not exist without an open market.

Quote

I'm in total agreement with you about the population thing though. But I have one more thought about that. How do we make sure that the potential Einsteins/Beethovens are able to reach their full potential? How do we equalize the chance everyone gets when starting out their lives?

We don't want to equalize the chances. If your children get an equal chance regardless of what you do, why bother to do much for them? If you want excellence, you have to try as hard as you can *NOT* to do anything that tends to even things out.

There's an old truth saying that the longer you wait the more expensive and hard things will be to change.

Ironic, since the truth is the reverse.

Quote

Wouldn't it have been great if we'd done that? Invested in electric cars, and nuclear? Then we would probably have an efficient electric car today, and knowledge about nuclear power unknown to us. Perhaps we would use thorium reactors? Perhaps something better?

But that's not what would have happened. We'd have built dozens more crappy reactors like the ones at Fukushima. And the resources devoted to electric cars wouldn't have gone to developing the more sophisticated computers and basic research that is making *good* electric cars possible.

The reason we can design such great nuclear reactors and electric cars today is not because of all the research into electric cars and nuclear reactors we've done. It's because we have (or at least *had*) a prosperous economy with good basic research, so we can do *everything* better.

When these things will really work, the profit motive will direct money into them. If you have to push to get money into them, it's strong evidence you're trying to do it wrong. You don't know if solar is right. You don't know if hydrogen is right. You don't know if thorium is right. Central planning will always tend to move resources to less productive uses because the information to make the right decisions simply does not exist without an open market.

Quote

I'm in total agreement with you about the population thing though. But I have one more thought about that. How do we make sure that the potential Einsteins/Beethovens are able to reach their full potential? How do we equalize the chance everyone gets when starting out their lives?

We don't want to equalize the chances. If your children get an equal chance regardless of what you do, why bother to do much for them? If you want excellence, you have to try as hard as you can *NOT* to do anything that tends to even things out.

There's an old truth saying that the longer you wait the more expensive and hard things will be to change.

Ironic, since the truth is the reverse.

Quote

Wouldn't it have been great if we'd done that? Invested in electric cars, and nuclear? Then we would probably have an efficient electric car today, and knowledge about nuclear power unknown to us. Perhaps we would use thorium reactors? Perhaps something better?

But that's not what would have happened. We'd have built dozens more crappy reactors like the ones at Fukushima. And the resources devoted to electric cars wouldn't have gone to developing the more sophisticated computers and basic research that is making *good* electric cars possible.

The reason we can design such great nuclear reactors and electric cars today is not because of all the research into electric cars and nuclear reactors we've done. It's because we have (or at least *had*) a prosperous economy with good basic research, so we can do *everything* better.

When these things will really work, the profit motive will direct money into them. If you have to push to get money into them, it's strong evidence you're trying to do it wrong. You don't know if solar is right. You don't know if hydrogen is right. You don't know if thorium is right. Central planning will always tend to move resources to less productive uses because the information to make the right decisions simply does not exist without an open market.

Quote

I'm in total agreement with you about the population thing though. But I have one more thought about that. How do we make sure that the potential Einsteins/Beethovens are able to reach their full potential? How do we equalize the chance everyone gets when starting out their lives?

We don't want to equalize the chances. If your children get an equal chance regardless of what you do, why bother to do much for them? If you want excellence, you have to try as hard as you can *NOT* to do anything that tends to even things out.

So if you design a new car, and you find a flaw in the design, would it be cheaper to fix it at the design stage, or after you've set up a production line, done all your tooling, trained your staff, ordered all components and started rolling out cars?

I agree with your assertion that a prosperous economy does a world of good for research, but basic research? Assuming we're talking about the same things here I'd say that's not something done by most companies. Companies does applied research, and they're damn good at it. Basic research is just a money sink to them and something most often done with taxpayers money. Solar is a good example. Now they're beginning to become efficient and many companies are investing in researching it, because of the research done over the last 30 years or so, mainly funded by taxpayers. Does that mean that the research done over the last 30 years have been wasted? Or that they've provided a foundation that companies can build on?

When it comes to the children then. I thought the race was on to find the next Einstein/Beethoven, not to provide a comfortable life for your children. Perhaps one of the snotty children of that poor family over there have the potential, but don't get the chance to proper education because of their socio-economic status. While we all like to think that our children are geniuses, the likelihood of that being true is slim. So you need a broad search scope, meaning that you'd want to give the largest amount of people possible the chance to test their potential. Not just the ones lucky enough to have good parents.

So.... the corrupt government should decide who gets the best chance at some predetermined age decided by sociologists trying to keep their jobs so the local bureaucrat doesn't get them fired. That's extreme but it completely negates your simplified argument. We all agree it sucks when some possibly really smart person is born into poverty and never allowed to reach her/his potential. No one argues that that sucks. Please propose an actual, applicable, real world solution to the problem rather than a vague idea.

Batteries are heavy, and include a huge 'sunk' energy cost in their production. They also don't last very long relative to the steel block combustion engine. They contain huge amounts of poisons that would contanimate any area that a major accident occurred. They are relatively slow, and have very limited ranges and long 'refueling' times. Even many 'green' leaning inventors have acknowleged the problems with electric transport, which is why the Revopower Wheel was invented. Pity it never made it to mass production, I would have bought one straight away. There is no substitute for the energy density of petrol.

Mostly matters of physics and economics, not matters of technology. Electric vehicles will become commonplace as soon as the economics of peak oil force the issue, and then people get accustomed to the particular inconviences that electric transport presents.

Perhaps we could have, but again, there isn't a lot of further research to be done. Again, we know how to build thorium cycle reactors, and we did it fourty years ago, but we just don't. The infrastructure, as you noted, exists for the refinement and production of uranium fuel rods, because of the military's desire for plutonium. We no longer need any more of that, and really need a lot less than we have, but the infrastructure exists. So uranium fuel cycle reactors not only have a precedent, they have an economicly mature nationwide/worldwide supply chain. An equivilent supply chain for thorium reactors would have to be built up from scratch, which can be done if we had the political will, but it seems that no one but India has any such will.

No contest there, but it's not really your's to decide.

True equal rights under the "law" (common law or natural law, like how the term was intended when the framers spoke the term.) No special rights for historicly oppressed groups, no identity politics. As a parent, I am responsible for the quality of their education and their health care, and no one else gets to intervene in my decisions. (excepting, perhaps, the child)

Batteries can be recycled and reused and yes they are poisonous in case of an accident. So are ICE cars. Not really a world of difference, except that it's easier to reduce pollution from electric cars. Are electric cars slow? Compared to what? They are on par with regular cars. The range could be solved and I know of a few ideas currently undergoing testing on how to charge electric cars during operation, which would also help with refuelling times. That too is an engineering problem and can be solved fairly easy. I saw a TED talk about replaceable battery packs. Go look for it. It's interesting.I too see issues with green tech, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. I had something similar to Revopower when I was young. Small two-stroke engine attached to the hub of a normal bike. Worked like a charm.

There's plenty to be done with our current reactors. They can be much more efficient than today. And fusion is still 20 years off.

Why shouldn't I have a say in things that affect me?

That's not creating an equal playing field. That's maintaining the status quo where the privileged have access to better everything and underprivileged are still screwed. Children with parents who won't or can't provide for them will be at a disadvantage, and most will never catch up.

Batteries can be recycled and reused and yes they are poisonous in case of an accident. So are ICE cars.

Batteries can only be recycled to an extent, and it depends upon the type of battery as well. Steel block engines have been recycled for over a century.

Quote

Not really a world of difference, except that it's easier to reduce pollution from electric cars.

Only in the immediate area, not overall. That is, unless you live in France, where 80% of the baseload power grid is fission nuclear. In the US, widespread adoption of electric vehicles would tax the grid as it is, and spur the contruction of more coal fired plants. I've worked in coal plants, nat gas peaking plants, and nuke plants. I'll never voluntarily return to a coal plant, but wouldn't think twice about living within 10 miles of a modern American nuke plant, but we won't get nuke plants, we would get more coal plants. You're electric vehicle burns coal, as delayed and distant that combustion may be. And don't even bother to bring up solar power or wind power to run the American private vehicle fleet. That doesn't even come close to being realistic.

Quote

Are electric cars slow? Compared to what? They are on par with regular cars.

Not off of the line, but max speed is an issue or max range is an issue. It's a design trade off. Falls back to that energy density issue again.

Quote

The range could be solved and I know of a few ideas currently undergoing testing on how to charge electric cars during operation, which would also help with refuelling times.

I presume that you mean one of the various versions of the inductive highway lane concept. Sure, that works but it's incrediblely inefficient, and there is no way to solve that inefficiency without making the electric cars incompatible with the roads we have everywhere else or making all of the other cars incompatible with driving on an inductive lane, or both. It's a band-aid solution to the limited range issue that would require a massive investment into new highway infrastructure, and who is going to pay for all of that?

Quote

That too is an engineering problem and can be solved fairly easy. I saw a TED talk about replaceable battery packs. Go look for it. It's interesting.

Yeah, I've seen it. The one where they talk about leasing the battery pack to the owner of the car. This is because the battery will not last as long as an average car, which is only about 7-9 years. Imagine if you had to completely rebuild your engine every two years, how well would that vehicle compete in an open market?

Quote

I too see issues with green tech, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. I had something similar to Revopower when I was young. Small two-stroke engine attached to the hub of a normal bike. Worked like a charm.

There's plenty to be done with our current reactors. They can be much more efficient than today. And fusion is still 20 years off.

Why shouldn't I have a say in things that affect me?

Sure, you have a say. You're saying right here. What you don't have is a vote in the matter as it pertains to the rights of others. Get used to that.

Quote

That's not creating an equal playing field. That's maintaining the status quo where the privileged have access to better everything and underprivileged are still screwed.

Reality is a bitch, but that doesn't mean that is because of something "the Rich" have done to you, personally or as a member of some class/group. The privileged are so privileged as a direct consequence of not being screwed. The underprivileged are not so underprivileged because "the Man" is trying to keep them down, but as a consequence of being screwed for other reasons. Not everything that goes wrong is someone else's fault.

Quote

Children with parents who won't or can't provide for them will be at a disadvantage, and most will never catch up.

So what? I can't do anything about that, it's just the way the world is. If you feel called to do something, become a teacher. My kids are homeschooled. They are both the only kids for whom I am responsible and the only kids for whom I can do anything to help. I'm doing my part, are you?

Yeah, I've seen it. The one where they talk about leasing the battery pack to the owner of the car. This is because the battery will not last as long as an average car, which is only about 7-9 years. Imagine if you had to completely rebuild your engine every two years, how well would that vehicle compete in an open market?

toyoto warranties the prius' battery for 8 years/100k miles. do you really think they would do that if they didn't think it would last at least that long?

one of the local taxi companies jumped on the original prius as soon as it came out here back in 2001. the batteries are still going strong.

Food shortages, as a result from climate change, isn't a credible threat. Far more likely is the rapid expansion of agriculture for the above noted reasons.

only up to a point. past a certain degree of warming (+3 degrees, IIRC), the losses overtake the gains, mostly because much of the land the growing zone expands into is utterly useless for farming. permafrost just turns into a marshy mess and you're not growing anything on barren rock regardless of how warm it gets.

You're electric vehicle burns coal, as delayed and distant that combustion may be. And don't even bother to bring up solar power or wind power to run the American private vehicle fleet. That doesn't even come close to being realistic.

It would still be an improvement due to efficiency of scale. a car-size IC engine is about 25% efficient, at best. combined cycle coal will do 50%+.

it's also nicer for general pollution outside of CO2, as it's loads easier and cheaper to scrub the hell out of the emissions of a handful of big plants than to try to scrub tens of thousands of itty bitty engines.

So if you design a new car, and you find a flaw in the design, would it be cheaper to fix it at the design stage, or after you've set up a production line, done all your tooling, trained your staff, ordered all components and started rolling out cars?

Exactly. So the longer you wait to start building the car, the greater the chances that the flaws will be found at the design stage.

Quote

I agree with your assertion that a prosperous economy does a world of good for research, but basic research? Assuming we're talking about the same things here I'd say that's not something done by most companies. Companies does applied research, and they're damn good at it. Basic research is just a money sink to them and something most often done with taxpayers money. Solar is a good example. Now they're beginning to become efficient and many companies are investing in researching it, because of the research done over the last 30 years or so, mainly funded by taxpayers. Does that mean that the research done over the last 30 years have been wasted? Or that they've provided a foundation that companies can build on?

Well sure, why pay for something if you can get the government to pay for it? The problem is that the government faces the same problem choosing priorities for basic research. But however you slice it, and whoever funds basic research, the more prosperous we are, the more basic research there can be.

Quote

When it comes to the children then. I thought the race was on to find the next Einstein/Beethoven, not to provide a comfortable life for your children. Perhaps one of the snotty children of that poor family over there have the potential, but don't get the chance to proper education because of their socio-economic status. While we all like to think that our children are geniuses, the likelihood of that being true is slim. So you need a broad search scope, meaning that you'd want to give the largest amount of people possible the chance to test their potential. Not just the ones lucky enough to have good parents.

You're again operating on the assumption that you can create some test to find the winners. You can't. The information to do that doesn't exist. If you created such a program, you likely would have passed right over Einstein. (I'll admit, you probably would have caught Beethoven.)

Yeah, I've seen it. The one where they talk about leasing the battery pack to the owner of the car. This is because the battery will not last as long as an average car, which is only about 7-9 years. Imagine if you had to completely rebuild your engine every two years, how well would that vehicle compete in an open market?

toyoto warranties the prius' battery for 8 years/100k miles. do you really think they would do that if they didn't think it would last at least that long?

one of the local taxi companies jumped on the original prius as soon as it came out here back in 2001. the batteries are still going strong.

The Prius isn't an electric car, it's a hybrid. The use case, for the batteries, are different. An electric car can expect to deep cycle it's battery bank daily, a hybrid generally doesn't deep cycle it's batteries except in relatively rare events.

Food shortages, as a result from climate change, isn't a credible threat. Far more likely is the rapid expansion of agriculture for the above noted reasons.

only up to a point. past a certain degree of warming (+3 degrees, IIRC), the losses overtake the gains, mostly because much of the land the growing zone expands into is utterly useless for farming. permafrost just turns into a marshy mess and you're not growing anything on barren rock regardless of how warm it gets.

Taht is based upon a great number of assumptions, as far as the 3 degrees rule is concerned. That's even assumeing that it's possible to even get there. And I've literally grown tomatos in a bucket on an apartment deck without great human effort. With the right knowlege and investments, there are many ways to grow food.

You're electric vehicle burns coal, as delayed and distant that combustion may be. And don't even bother to bring up solar power or wind power to run the American private vehicle fleet. That doesn't even come close to being realistic.

It would still be an improvement due to efficiency of scale. a car-size IC engine is about 25% efficient, at best. combined cycle coal will do 50%+.

A modern common rail desial is about 50% efficient, and can burn vegetable oil directly. There has existed a desial engine design that was nearly 50% efficent for 100 years, ist's just very heavy relative to it's power output. They are still made in India, called Listeroids after the origianl design, as Lister CS. SOme of those have ran continuously and outlived their original owners.

That's not even considering the total efficentcy of using coal to charge car batteries, because the coal plant might be 50%, which is pretty good, but then the transmission can be as low as 90%, the charging and discagiing cycles can be as low as 75% for a new battery, and less for an older one, and the transmission system (mostly the electric motor) are usually about 90-95% to the wheels. That estimate of ICE efficenies in cars is already to the wheels.

Quote

it's also nicer for general pollution outside of CO2, as it's loads easier and cheaper to scrub the hell out of the emissions of a handful of big plants than to try to scrub tens of thousands of itty bitty engines.

[...] The village’s green initiative first started in 1997 when the village council decided that it should build new industries, keep initiatives local, bring in new revenue, and create no debt. Over the past 14 years, the community has equipped nine new community buildings with solar panels, built four biogas digesters (with a fifth in construction now) and installed seven windmills with two more on the way. In the village itself, 190 private households have solar panels while the district also benefits from three small hydro power plants, ecological flood control, and a natural waste water system. [...]

Surely that calculation may be a bit naive (it would have to be analyzed deeper as they are surely not completely self-sustaining, they probably import machinery, cars etc which may not have been produced with a good eco balance), but what counts is the incentive.

Humans per se seem to be good, they care for this planet, and decentral communities have good intentions. It is first and foremost the psychopathy of big corporations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5hEiANG4Uk) and the military-industrial centralization that brings forward global warming imo.

While I applaud the effort and the result, you are aware of the fact that this village is the result of heavy government subsidies, right?

While our government subsidizes things like solar panels a little bit (and we all know that such interventions are questionable as the market would probably find the equilibrium at the same price), my point is that it is doable, profitable, and efficient, so where there is no government, there will be inverstors.

And I also want to point out that it is that little village alone that took the initiative. I believe in a libertarian society residential communities will be comparable to those small villages of today.

While I applaud the effort and the result, you are aware of the fact that this village is the result of heavy government subsidies, right?

While our government subsidizes things like solar panels a little bit (and we all know that such interventions are questionable as the market would probably find the equilibrium at the same price), my point is that it is doable, profitable, and efficient, so where there is no government, there will be inverstors.

And I also want to point out that it is that little village alone that took the initiative. I believe in a libertarian society residential communities will be comparable to those small villages of today.

Have a look at how the power is being sold back to the grid. Especially the pricing.

Have a look at how the power is being sold back to the grid. Especially the pricing.

For some reason, the majority of governments seem to think they need to royally screw up electricity pricing and destroy the market for innovation in power delivery. All logic says that the more electricity I draw, the less I should pay per watt (because it costs less to provide the power to me), but my State government forces the pricing to go the other way to compel me to conserve even where conservation is counter-productive and inefficient.

It places other comically silly perverse incentives on me as well, I could go on for many paragraphs. By pushing prices artificially low for the majority of users, they actually disincentivize conservation. It is completely ass backwards. And when the weather is extreme, my prices actually go *down* (on the logic that I "need" more electricity), incentivizing me to shift my demand specifically to the times when it's the most expensive to service.

A libertarian/Ron Paul society should support a gas tax. If there is a specfic amount of CO2 in the air you want, just increase the tax until you reach that goal. The money raised from the tax can be deleted.

A libertarian/Ron Paul society should support a gas tax. If there is a specfic amount of CO2 in the air you want, just increase the tax until you reach that goal. The money raised from the tax can be deleted.

You won't find many Libertarians who think that the government would be competent to engineer the economy and the climate in that way. In your view, what is mechanism Libertarians would accept for how the government should decide how much CO2 there should be in the air? And, of course, unless you imagine one world government, you still have the problem of the conflicting self-interests of various nations (whether Libertarian or otherwise).

Have a look at how the power is being sold back to the grid. Especially the pricing.

For some reason, the majority of governments seem to think they need to royally screw up electricity pricing and destroy the market for innovation in power delivery. All logic says that the more electricity I draw, the less I should pay per watt (because it costs less to provide the power to me), but my State government forces the pricing to go the other way to compel me to conserve even where conservation is counter-productive and inefficient.

It places other comically silly perverse incentives on me as well, I could go on for many paragraphs. By pushing prices artificially low for the majority of users, they actually disincentivize conservation. It is completely ass backwards. And when the weather is extreme, my prices actually go *down* (on the logic that I "need" more electricity), incentivizing me to shift my demand specifically to the times when it's the most expensive to service.

Do you still live under the delusion that what you pay and what cost the company have are somehow connected? Here a private company raised their prices because people were using their service, when according to you logic prices should go down. The only connection there is, is when their cost is higher than what they can charge.

What I find interesting about the German village discussed is that the Government have actually set a price that the power companies have to buy power back to. Without that law there would be no buyback and no incentives to produce power for small communities. The government is acting as an enabler here, promoting innovation and change.

Not what people would call libertarian I guess. Let's see a way a libertarian could address global warming, this one wasn't it.

Do you still live under the delusion that what you pay and what cost the company have are somehow connected?

Not in the electric power industry.

Quote

Here a private company raised their prices because people were using their service, when according to you logic prices should go down. The only connection there is, is when their cost is higher than what they can charge.

That's not quite what I said. The price to an individual customer should go down as their usage goes up. But higher total usage across all customers will cause prices to rise. It's the same with any other product. If you want to buy 10 Volvos, you can probably negotiate a rock bottom price. But if everyone wants a Volvo, they're all going to pay more.

Quote

What I find interesting about the German village discussed is that the Government have actually set a price that the power companies have to buy power back to. Without that law there would be no buyback and no incentives to produce power for small communities. The government is acting as an enabler here, promoting innovation and change.

Right, but it's promoting inefficient innovation and change. It's not clear that producing power that costs more than people are willing to pay for it is beneficial. Meanwhile, the resources that went to producing this miniscule amount of unprofitable power can't go to other things.

Quote

Not what people would call libertarian I guess. Let's see a way a libertarian could address global warming, this one wasn't it.

The right way to deal with global warming is to become so smart and rich that we forget it ever even was an issue. This is the same way the human race has solved every problem it's ever solved.

Do you still live under the delusion that what you pay and what cost the company have are somehow connected?

Quote

Not in the electric power industry.

But you think that they do in other industries?

Quote

Here a private company raised their prices because people were using their service, when according to you logic prices should go down. The only connection there is, is when their cost is higher than what they can charge.

Quote

That's not quite what I said. The price to an individual customer should go down as their usage goes up. But higher total usage across all customers will cause prices to rise. It's the same with any other product. If you want to buy 10 Volvos, you can probably negotiate a rock bottom price. But if everyone wants a Volvo, they're all going to pay more.

The same is true in the power industry. Large consumers get better deals. You're not a large consumer, so they charge you whatever they can.

Quote

What I find interesting about the German village discussed is that the Government have actually set a price that the power companies have to buy power back to. Without that law there would be no buyback and no incentives to produce power for small communities. The government is acting as an enabler here, promoting innovation and change.

Quote

Right, but it's promoting inefficient innovation and change. It's not clear that producing power that costs more than people are willing to pay for it is beneficial. Meanwhile, the resources that went to producing this miniscule amount of unprofitable power can't go to other things.

How do you know it's inefficient? The government has successfully managed to create a village that is self sufficient and given incentives to others to break free from the power companies. Yes, it's a shame that the money instead isn't in the pockets of the power companies, where it would do so much more good. ;D

Quote

Not what people would call libertarian I guess. Let's see a way a libertarian could address global warming, this one wasn't it.

Quote

The right way to deal with global warming is to become so smart and rich that we forget it ever even was an issue. This is the same way the human race has solved every problem it's ever solved.

That brings us back to how we find the next Einstein/Beethoven then? How to provide education and a level playing field for all so that everybody can reach their maximum potential. Except we should only look after ourselves, unless we feel a little charitable around Christmas and donate a little to some poor fellow.

Do you still live under the delusion that what you pay and what cost the company have are somehow connected?

Quote

Not in the electric power industry.

But you think that they do in other industries?

Yes, in less-regulated industries, they do. In a competitive industry, you would generally expect that products that cost less to provide have a lower price.

Quote

The same is true in the power industry. Large consumers get better deals. You're not a large consumer, so they charge you whatever they can.

They charge me the price the State compels them to charge. They have no leeway.

Quote

How do you know it's inefficient? The government has successfully managed to create a village that is self sufficient and given incentives to others to break free from the power companies. Yes, it's a shame that the money instead isn't in the pockets of the power companies, where it would do so much more good. ;D

I know it's inefficient because if it was efficient, it wouldn't have had to be compelled. If the prices they were getting for electricity were negotiated prices rather than compelled prices, they would be operating at a loss.

Quote

Quote

The right way to deal with global warming is to become so smart and rich that we forget it ever even was an issue. This is the same way the human race has solved every problem it's ever solved.

That brings us back to how we find the next Einstein/Beethoven then? How to provide education and a level playing field for all so that everybody can reach their maximum potential. Except we should only look after ourselves, unless we feel a little charitable around Christmas and donate a little to some poor fellow.

If you're going to do it by forced central command, taking it from one person to give it to someone else, you will almost always wind up doing the opposite of what you want to do. In general, people wind up with money because they are being productive. Forced, centralized redistribution is not the way.

Do you still live under the delusion that what you pay and what cost the company have are somehow connected?

Quote

Not in the electric power industry.

But you think that they do in other industries?

Quote

Yes, in less-regulated industries, they do. In a competitive industry, you would generally expect that products that cost less to provide have a lower price.

Interesting that you think that. That's not my experience. You charge what your competitors charge, more or less, depending on how you position yourself. Lower cost to provide means more profit, not lower consumer cost.

Quote

The same is true in the power industry. Large consumers get better deals. You're not a large consumer, so they charge you whatever they can.

Quote

They charge me the price the State compels them to charge. They have no leeway.

Your prices are set by the state? Really? Where do you live? I get to choose which company should exploit me, and they set their prices according to "free market principles" meaning that they collude to skin us all.

Quote

How do you know it's inefficient? The government has successfully managed to create a village that is self sufficient and given incentives to others to break free from the power companies. Yes, it's a shame that the money instead isn't in the pockets of the power companies, where it would do so much more good. ;D

Quote

I know it's inefficient because if it was efficient, it wouldn't have had to be compelled. If the prices they were getting for electricity were negotiated prices rather than compelled prices, they would be operating at a loss.

They probably would operate at a loss if the prices weren't set by the state. That's because power companies doesn't like competition. They have no incentive to allow this, and every reason to resist it. That doesn't mean that it's inefficient, it just means that power companies like profit.

Quote

Quote

The right way to deal with global warming is to become so smart and rich that we forget it ever even was an issue. This is the same way the human race has solved every problem it's ever solved.

That brings us back to how we find the next Einstein/Beethoven then? How to provide education and a level playing field for all so that everybody can reach their maximum potential. Except we should only look after ourselves, unless we feel a little charitable around Christmas and donate a little to some poor fellow.

Quote

If you're going to do it by forced central command, taking it from one person to give it to someone else, you will almost always wind up doing the opposite of what you want to do. In general, people wind up with money because they are being productive. Forced, centralized redistribution is not the way.

In general people end up with money because they have money. If not forced, centralized redistribution (aka taxation) is the way, then what is? How do you level the playing field and make everybody reach their full potential? Being born poor is having the deck stacked against you, some overcome that, but most don't.

Interesting that you think that. That's not my experience. You charge what your competitors charge, more or less, depending on how you position yourself. Lower cost to provide means more profit, not lower consumer cost.

The primary reason lower cost to provide means more profit is because it enables you to sell at a lower price and therefore generate a higher volume. Unless you have a very atypical situation, costs will be roughly comparable across competitors, so a lower cost for one company to produce will mean a lower cost for their competitors as well. Every restaurant charges less for hamburger than steak because every restaurant can produce a hamburger for less than a steak. You're treating the exception as if it were the rule.

Quote

Your prices are set by the state? Really? Where do you live? I get to choose which company should exploit me, and they set their prices according to "free market principles" meaning that they collude to skin us all.

I live in California where State law requires nonsensical electrical pricing. You can read more about it here: http://www.pge.com/myhome/myaccount/rateinfo/ and here http://www.pge.com/myhome/myaccount/charges/

Quote

They probably would operate at a loss if the prices weren't set by the state. That's because power companies doesn't like competition. They have no incentive to allow this, and every reason to resist it. That doesn't mean that it's inefficient, it just means that power companies like profit.

It does mean it's inefficient. Power companies didn't drop from the heavens. They exist because they invested money to build and maintain transmission facilities. This investment was made only because they expected a profit from those investments.

Quote

In general people end up with money because they have money. If not forced, centralized redistribution (aka taxation) is the way, then what is? How do you level the playing field and make everybody reach their full potential? Being born poor is having the deck stacked against you, some overcome that, but most don't.

You seem to think that you can somehow make the right decisions if only you had the power. You *can't*. The information needed to make the right decisions simply doesn't exist in one place like that.

You need incentives because the only thing people really respond to are incentives.. If you take away the handicap of being born poor, you take away the incentive not to let your children be born into poverty. Being born without musical talent is having the deck stacked against you too, but leveling the playing field would mean giving music lessons to those with the least natural talent.

You're trying to push a ball uphill. You've stacked the deck so that all the incentives work against the direction you're trying to go. You want excellence, but then you reward excellence and mediocrity the same with a level playing field. You want to find the big rocks and push on them until they're at the top. And you insist on starting each ball at the bottom. It just won't work.

What you need to do is roll the balls downhill. Align incentives so that things go in the direction you want them to go. Fortunately, nature pretty much does this automatically so long as you stay out of its way. The main thing you have to fix is broken incentives -- essentially cheating. You don't have to make the world fair, just the system.

The solution is to become so rich and prosperous such that our problems continue to rapidly become irrelevant and forgotten, joining the shortage of whale oil and streets filled with manure.

I'm assuming that by libertarianism we mean anarcho-capitalism, since a minarchist libertarian society can still justly enforce carbon taxes and the like as CO2 emissions are a form of harm/aggression against others.

Just a few weeks ago, the governments of the world managed to make significant progress toward addressing the climate change issue in Durban, laying the foundations for a cap-and-trade agreement to be made in 2015 and to take effect in 2020, potentially including commitments by the US, China and India. Now, international law respects the sovereignty of nations, so theoretically any country could pull out and keep polluting, and setting up the treaty to shut down if any party reneges on its agreements, while a valid strategy for bilateral agreements, would not be viable in this case. So what would be in place to dissuade polluters? Economic sanctions - essentially everyone would put tariffs on their goods. With that penalty in place, it's in everyone's interest not to pollute.

But why would anyone put tariffs on goods? It's well known that tariffs introduce economic inefficiency and ultimately hurt more than they help due to deadweight loss, so why would anyone take the hit for themselves to punish others? Two factors are at play. First, the specific mechanism of a tariff has the very attractive property that the disincentive to trade with the cheater scales linearly with the tariff (by definition) but the deadweight loss scales with the square (since with a 10% tariff everyone with less than a 10% profit margin has to stop trading, losing out on approximately 5% profit, but with a 20% tariff everyone with less than a 20% profit margin (about twice as many people) has to stop trading, losing out on approximately 10% profit - see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss) and notice how the harm is in the form of a triangle), so it's worth it for large players like the US to impose reasonably small tariffs that carry a medium amount of push at very low cost. Second, tariffs can be enforced recursively - if anyone refuses to implement punitive tariffs, the WTO might decide to implement a punitive tariff against them, and everyone would be similarly pushed to implement that punishment as well.

So how would all this translate into a libertarian society? All that the previous explanation required is the existence of powerful market players that are motivated by a large number of people's welfare and that has control over a powerful economic output. The lever of control does not have to be a tariff - taking a model of a country as an atomic unit (stay with me here for just one second libertarians, I know why that perspective is so philosophically wrong, but it's useful here), a tariff is really a country stealing from itself and cutting down on a certain one of its actions. A person or institution can, instead of a tariff, implement a partial boycott. To illustrate the principle, an business might reduce its electricity consumption by 10%, cutting out only that portion of its usage that provides only a small marginal benefit over not using electricity (eg. turning off the lights when it's not too inconvenient) but still pushing down his demand for electricity by a considerable amount. But organizations enacting such measures do not have to be governments with monopolies over large land areas. Possibilities include:

* A corporation, choosing to support voluntary pro-climate moves as a side benefit to its customers and workers* A cooperative democratically voting to support such measures* A voluntary mutual aid society* A health or home insurance company seeing an interest in reducing how much it will have to pay to deal with the diseases that global warming helps spread or hurricane activity

Such large groups would agree on a treaty to reduce their emitting activities, and also reduce their use of products from businesses outside of the treaty. With large companies being more willing to work with pro-environmental players, a degree of enforced environmentalism trickles down into medium sized businesses and groups and even small businesses as well.

And so far all this assumes purely materialistic self-interested agents. Once you add social peer pressure, environmentalists who actively desire seeing the earth not being polluted just as strongly as we desire our homes not having dirt all over the place, and other psychological factors the scale tips even further.

You know what? Screw global warming for now. How would a libertarian society handle the current level of water poisoning? Fish are dying out, more and more beaches fill with algae, rivers are full of waste (from detergents to artificial manure) etc. None of these things visibly influence businesses that make the mess. How free should this market stay?

You know what? Screw global warming for now. How would a libertarian society handle the current level of water poisoning? Fish are dying out, more and more beaches fill with algae, rivers are full of waste (from detergents to artificial manure) etc. None of these things visibly influence businesses that make the mess. How free should this market stay?

the minority of people that care about the environment rather than getting stuff for the cheapest price possible will buy from the mythical non-polluting company and magically, other companies will spend unprofitable amounts of money to cater to that tiny minority rather than spending smaller amounts on look-good measures and advertising or simply continuing as before.

or perhaps the non-existent owners of the damaged land are supposed to sue the polluting company.

You know what? Screw global warming for now. How would a libertarian society handle the current level of water poisoning? Fish are dying out, more and more beaches fill with algae, rivers are full of waste (from detergents to artificial manure) etc. None of these things visibly influence businesses that make the mess. How free should this market stay?

I don't think anybody has any idea how a libertarian society would handle it. But that's the point. But that's the beauty of solutions that don't involve central planning -- they work even when nobody has any idea how to solve the problem.

Imagine if our entire food distribution system was run by the government. It would likely do the mediocre job that's typical of governments. The system would be running multibillion dollar deficits each year. There would be occasional serious shortages, long lines, poor selection, and so on. Now suppose I proposed a simple solution, let anyone who wants to sell any food they want to any place they want to for any price they want to.

You would get the exact same kinds of responses. What would ensure that anyone actually sold any food? Who would make sure Denver had beans? What would stop people from just selling the most profitable foods and driving the government food distribution into deeper deficits during the transition?

Before you set up such a system, nobody could tell you that the answer included a national chain of stores that sell a $4 cup of coffee. Nobody could predict, or even propose, Costco or McDonald's.

You can't even guess what the solutions might be until you have a system that allows people to test solutions and rewards the good ones and punishes the bad ones. So, I admit it, I have no idea how a Libertarian society would deal with pollution. I have a few guesses, but I'm pretty sure they're wrong. It's hard to imagine it could be any worse than a society where the government just permits people to pollute.

First, support this claim. I have no incentive to respond to this based upon your assumptions.

I'm to lazy to search for a freely available document concerning every claim i made :D but this might be more then enough:http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=391&catid=10&subcatid=66This is what an unregulated market looks like. As much as I'd love for people to be free to reap all the benefits of their hard work, I really don't want to live surrounded by red poison or feed my grandkids with suspicious algae

I'm just questioning the opposite extreme because I like questioning :)

Then the short answer is that nobody knows. Markets create the information needed to solve problems. Without that information, the solutions are unimaginable. Nobody alive today has anything more than a guess as to how a Libertarian society would deal with problems like global warming or water pollution. The trick is simply to create the right incentives and then let people respond to them.

What's interesting is that the criticisms of Libertarianism has tended to move from the things existing governments do well to the things existing governments do very, very badly. If your only issue with Libertarianism is that it it might not do a great job on things existing governments royally screw up anyway, you should probably become a Libertarian.

You know what? Screw global warming for now. How would a libertarian society handle the current level of water poisoning? Fish are dying out, more and more beaches fill with algae, rivers are full of waste (from detergents to artificial manure) etc. None of these things visibly influence businesses that make the mess. How free should this market stay?

The standard answer is if the river is owned, then the owner(s) of the river will have the right incentives to keep it unpolluted. See, for example: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n2-6.html

If you care about clean rivers, then buy them (or donate money to an organization that buys them; the Nature Conservancy is one of my favorite charities).

It is the Chinese government's river, not the free market's, why are they tolerating all the pollution?

Global Warming and air pollution is a stickier problem because nobody owns the climate or the air we breathe, and nobody CAN own them. Personally, I think we do actually need good government for some things, which is why I describe myself as "mostly libertarian".

And if I were King, I think I'd implement the Cato Institute's suggestion and give all of our National Parks and public wilderness to private environmental organizations to take care of (or sell, if they decided they could put the money to better use for something else).

Global Warming and air pollution is a stickier problem because nobody owns the climate or the air we breathe, and nobody CAN own them. Personally, I think we do actually need good government for some things, which is why I describe myself as "mostly libertarian".

One commonly proposed Libertarian solution to the problem of things that cannot be owned (such as climate and air) is to use the legal system. Essentially, you would create a cause of action for harming an unowned resource. So people who harm the climate or pollute the air could be sued. In other words, there's really nothing un-Libertarian about government protecting resources that cannot be owned.

I believe this is the majority Libertarian view. There are some Libertarians who believe that if it cannot be owned, anyone is free to trash it as they please.

I'm guessing that in libertarian utopia, everyone would be equal in the eyes of the law and not the people with more expensive lawyers... That sounds even less libertarian then the current society :D

Libertarians shouldn't promise a utopia, and generally they don't. The problem of creating a legal system that's fair to people regardless of wealth is pretty much the same in a Libertarian society as it is in any other society. Most Libertarians accept that taxation will be needed to fund the legal system.

What I find interesting about the German village discussed is that the Government have actually set a price that the power companies have to buy power back to. Without that law there would be no buyback and no incentives to produce power for small communities. The government is acting as an enabler here, promoting innovation and change.

Not what people would call libertarian I guess. Let's see a way a libertarian could address global warming, this one wasn't it.

Well, if the subsidizing is really necessary in that village, then it is probably because there is already existing infrastructure in place that needs to be maintained and that was originally intended for the old kinds of energy. Siemens and other corporations are actually working with the villagers to implement a "smart grid". The involved corporations and the government of course want to sell an eco-image too, mind you.

Either way, the village merely shows what can be done with renewable energy today. What I regard among the highest values in my understanding of freedom and liberty is self-sufficiency and decentralization, i.e. independence from governments and big corps. The possibility of being able to produce my own clean energy for me and my neighbors in a small-scale "smart grid" surely does provide a strong incentive for me and I'm sure for many others as well.

Short answer: It wouldn't deal with global warming. It would fall victim to it.Long answer: No part of the libertarian Ideal says that it must be able to defeat global warming. Why should Communism, or Capitalism, or Socialism be able to defend against global warming? That is irrelevant to the ideals of the market theory.

Let's say that a warmer earth actually is good for the human race. How will CO2 producers receive a subsidy equivalent to their positive benefit on society in a libertarian world?

It's obvious the government can't realistically stop CO2 production, prove that warming is caused by said CO2, and conclusively say if this warming is a bad thing. Technology and the advancement of human society can most likely solve this problem if it truly exist.

Let's say that a warmer earth actually is good for the human race. How will CO2 producers receive a subsidy equivalent to their positive benefit on society in a libertarian world?

Those calculations explicitly do not include two kinds of costs that make the result that there's no positive benefit. You can't use that argument to reach that conclusion.

One of them is the cost of everything being in the wrong place. Humans have built farms, dams, ski resorts, cities, and all kinds of other things based on the current weather. If the Earth warms up, all of these things will be reduced in effectiveness.

The other is the cost of everyone being in the wrong place. When the water and food moves, the people who are the beneficiaries of the the climate change and now have surpluses of food and water and not going to donate to the people who now have shortages. Food and water will be on the other side of a border and political unrest and likely even wars will break out. People will starve. Crops will die.

It's not the argument that a warmer climate is good for the human race is incorrect. It's just that it only refutes the argument that a colder climate is somehow inherently bad or that the current climate is inherently perfect. It's only perfect because we've built ourselves and our world taking it into account.

Any change in climate is spectacularly bad for the human race. And that's very unfortunate because the only thing almost everyone does agree on is that the climate is going to change.

Maybe the question should rather be "how does the government address global warming". Well it does so for example by banning the age-old cultivation of a plant that could for the most part set us free from fossil fuels and plastic, chemicals and deforestation.

And pretty damn useless for most purposes too, regardless of temperature.

the low and middle boreal forests are rather dense, so to get any farming done you'd need to fairly much clearcut that, which would require decidedly nontrivial amounts of time, money, and energy.

the high boreal thins out and would probably work for farming.

then you get into the permafrost, which will become a muddy mess when it thaws, and barren rock. it doesn't matter how warm it gets, you ARE NOT going to be farming on either of those.

And my response is, so what? A century is a long time to make such adjustments. It's simply not a 'crisis' by any rational definition of the term.

Title: They certainly would do it WITHOUT a facist police state that monitors
Post by: Rockford99 on January 03, 2012, 06:25:20 AM

everyone's light bulb purchase, type of car, etc. There's two problems with this question #1 I'm an electricity trader by profession and very little confidence in meteorological forecasts and am very skeptical of global warming. We have had substantial climate in past before humans started burning fossil fuels. There are 20 and 30 year ocean oscillation cycles that may or may not be causing the fluctuations. On a much a much longer time frame, there a shifts in the earth's tilt and its orbit that cause major climatic changes.

#2 ... and this is my beef about any kind of group/communal joint action coercive arrangement. Why is it that (not necessarily you) that most leftwing type of people want to solve a problem by taking the most intrusive, privacy destroying solution to solve a problem. Now we have light bulb restrictions, toilet size restrictions and are promoting carbon trading schemes that are extremely difficult to measure, difficult to allocate but yet it seems that most of the Democratic party supports such as thing.

If reducing carbon is your objective why don't you enact a BTU tax at a couple of the central locations that fuels flow through. You could collect revenue but not have to collect dossiers and micromanage the lives of individual people. Same for taxes - put a consumption tax at large businesses, but let everyone remain private and anonymous without having to self-report their personal dealings to the IRS every year?

It makes me wonder if the people advocating such schemes aren't more interested in spying on their fellow man (ME!) than saving the planet. If the planet can be helped without busybody tactics then why are these tactics usually advocated?

In Super Freakonomics they suggested a system of tubes tied to weather balloons could be used to convey sulfur dioxide up to the trophosphere in the upper atmosphere where it would have a profound cooling effect - like volcanoes. It would be cheap to do and wouldn't require a police state. Then again, mankind could keep on converting tar sands, etc. and people could live in privacy. Why wouldn't a serious-minded lib attempt such a low-cost potential solution in the first place if they were TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?

Just my hunch, but I suspect they get a much bigger kick out spying on people's money or shutting down industry than saving the planet. Any feasible solution that doesn't let them stick their noses where it doesn't belong isn't much fun for them. If you can have a less intrusive, anonymous arms-length tax why don't they ever get proposed?

One of them is the cost of everything being in the wrong place. Humans have built farms, dams, ski resorts, cities, and all kinds of other things based on the current weather. If the Earth warms up, all of these things will be reduced in effectiveness.

What about the cost of preventing any changes of climate.

Not that I believe humans are capable to control global climate. This is usual communist megalomania.This is so silly because climate has been changing since the beginning of Earth.

Read all the 27 comments at the provided link (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3888&cpage=1#comment-333148). You can't just be lazy to read only what I commented here. I can't copy this entire linked page of comments into this thread.

There is no science of man-made global warming. Period. The comments at the linked thread are irrefutable.

Never in millions of years of cycles has temperature risen after CO2 does. Temperate always rises at least 600 years before C02 does. So C02 can't be the cause. Duh!

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I have read your thesis on global warming and that this is only part of a natural cycle. I admit that you have persuaded me whereas the claims are false especially that New York City should have been under water by now according Al Gore. You mentioned that there was global warming which enabled the Vikings to reach America because the ice melted. My question is rather blunt. If we are headed now into a global cooling period, what is the historical evidence that society also declines?

Thank you in advance

PD

ANSWER: I have reported that the peat fires in Borneo and Sumatra (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/indonesias-peat-fires-exceed-emissions-from-the-entire-u-s-economy/) have now exceeded all the emissions from the entire U.S. economy. This whole movement is simply to raise taxes on the bogus theory of global warming. We are not so powerful to alter the course of cyclical movement of the planet. Bouts of global cooling (ice ages) as well as warming periods predate the combustion engine and mankind. It is rather questionable analysis to claim we have altered the climate. We are capable of polluting things, true. But actually altering the climate is something beyond our power.

Volcanoes are a major issue in climate change. Yes, studies reveal that the Hawaiian Kilauea volcanoe eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day, which has been going on for more than 20 years. However, gas studies worldwide by volcanologists have calculated that global volcanic CO2 production on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. But this is really in the absence of any real catastrophic eruptions. Volcanoes (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas.html) emit also Sulfur dioxide SO2 which automobiles emit very little. When Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18th, 1980, it produced 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide on that one day and about 2 million metric tons for the entire event far more than automobiles.

Moreover, volcanic production of CO2 is by far not really the issue in climate change. Instead of global warming from CO2, it is the plume of ash in the sky which actually blocks the sun and reverses the climate from warm to cold like sitting under an umbrella at the beach. I have discussed Mount Tambora (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/1816-global-cooling-from-volcanoes/) which erupted in 1815 and threw into the air so much ash that it snowed during the summer of 1816 in New York City. It became known as 18-hundred-and-froze-to-death. I have shown the correlation of that eruption to wheat prices.

I have also written about the Maunder Minimum (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/maunder-minimum-petri-dish-of-political-change/) (<--- returning again in 2030!) which sent the Earth into a cold period 300 years ago from the perspective of the cycle energy output from the Sun. I have also gone into the evolution of science which has been set in motion by the very discovery of a frozen woolly rhinoceros which altered science in many fields. I have explain how the temperature at the time of the American Revolution (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/global-warmingalternately-climate-change-guide-for-dummies/) was at its lowest point in the cycle.

All of that said, the ice core samples have revealed that there were two major volcanic eruptions in 536 and 540 AD which sent Europe into an ice age and wiped out the Roman civilization. Flavius Odoacer (433–493) was a soldier who in 476 became the first King of Italy (476–493) after deposing Romulus Augustus, the last official Roman emperor in the West.

Odoacer was overthrown by Theodoric the Great (454-526), the Ostrogoth. He was followed by Athalaric (526-534), and a few others then finally Baduila (541-552). So while Rome officially ends in the West with Romulus Augustus in 476AD, the Ostrogoths fade out after 552 due to the climate changes. In the East, the change in climate appears to have also possibly been linked to the Plague of Justinian (541–542) which was a pandemic that afflicted the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, especially its capital Constantinople, the Sassanid Empire, and port cities around the entire Mediterranean Sea. I have written about the political turmoil there in Byzantium which preceded the plague during the Nika Revolt (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/nika-riots/) of 532AD. I have also written about how empires die (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/2012-2/where-do-empires-go-to-die-and-when-they-do-die-how-do-empires-die/). It does seem that when temperatures decline, civil unrest rises and this increases the risk of revolutions.

When Thera erupted around 1645-1650BC, this created a climate change and marked the end of the Minoan civilization. They were conquered by the Mycenae who also captured Troy. As the weather turned cold, Greece goes into a Dark Age. The Greeks migrated and other places called them the “sea people” since they did not know where they came from as the invaded Northern Africa. Homer wrote about the period before the Dark Age known as the Heroic Period. Scholars thought this was fiction about Troy and Mycenae until Heinrich Schliemann (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/research/heinrich-schliemann/) (1822 – 1890) set out and discovered what Homer wrote about was history.

The historical evidence (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-016-1648-7) is rather extensive. It does appear that as we enter into a global cooling period, governments will fall, disease will increase, and the risk of Western Civilization declining sharply all become historically possible.

Now, there's a two-week straight lack of sunspots, the longest stretch since 2010.

Overview

The sun is currently blank with no visible sunspots and this is the 14th straight day with a blank look which is the longest such stretch since April 2010 according to spaceweather.com. Historically weak solar cycle 24 continues to transition away from its solar maximum phase and towards the next solar minimum. In April 2010 – the last time there was a two week stretch with no visible sunspots – the sun was emerging from the last solar minimum which was historically long and deep. There have already been 26 spotless days in 2017 (34% of the entire year) and this follows 32 spotless days last year which occurred primarily during the latter part of the year.

Read more at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/no_author/sun-slump/.